Tiger, Tiger, and more Tiger

[GolfMN]

Ok, so hes darn good. He can have a terrible day and win. Yeah he might well be the greatest player in the history of the game, its up for debate.

 

But what ever happened to the days when you had to earn your TV time? That may be a poor choice of words. Since when did being very good overall make you the person with all the cameras when you're tied for 9th and 10 off the pace?

 

All you see on TV is Tiger, the leader, and maybe whoever is in second. Tiger can be a bunch of shots back, and still have ten times the TV time as the guy 2 places above him.

 

How do you guys feel about this? I mean he's exciting to watch. When he's going to try something cool I expect to see it, but every shot? We see Tiger's entire round, and everybody else's highlight reel. I always get the feeling that I am missing a lot of great golf on Tiger's off days, because when hes off the cameras are still on him, no matter whos making shots and moving up elsewhere on the course.

 

Am I the only one bothered a bit by this?

[thenewbie]

I'd think that part of it is that tiger can actually be 10 back and still win. He really played quite "average" this week and placed 2nd.

 

but over-all, I agree.

[AM92318]

Who do you want them to show Brandt Snedeker who was 2nd who shot a 77 or Steve Flesch 3rd who shot 78, how bout showing Paul Casey started the day 4th and shot a 79, yeah we all wanted to see that. Well maybe if Phil Mickelson didn't butcher his 3rd round we might have seen more of him on Sunday.

[labillyboy]

They show Tiger for one reason only... ratings.

 

Oh wait... maybe two reasons... he's the #1 golfer in the world too. I think I read that if you add up the points of Phil, #3 and #4 Tiger would STILL be ahead of them all combined.... THAT is why he gets TV time.

[gentles]

Maybe cause he's the guy everyone wants to see, even If he isn't in the lead.

[not much time]

Ok, so hes darn good. He can have a terrible day and win. Yeah he might well be the greatest player in the history of the game, its up for debate.

 

But what ever happened to the days when you had to earn your TV time? That may be a poor choice of words. Since when did being very good overall make you the person with all the cameras when you're tied for 9th and 10 off the pace?

 

All you see on TV is Tiger, the leader, and maybe whoever is in second. Tiger can be a bunch of shots back, and still have ten times the TV time as the guy 2 places above him.

 

How do you guys feel about this? I mean he's exciting to watch. When he's going to try something cool I expect to see it, but every shot? We see Tiger's entire round, and everybody else's highlight reel. I always get the feeling that I am missing a lot of great golf on Tiger's off days, because when hes off the cameras are still on him, no matter whos making shots and moving up elsewhere on the course.

 

Am I the only one bothered a bit by this?

 

 

I`ve said it before for Tiger to be the greatest, he first has to beat Jacks records and the one thing that could stop him from doing that is if his putting goes, he missed putts by a long way at the Masters. There have been many pros in the past that lost their putting and they were history in a year. I`m not saying that he has lost it I`m saying putting is the key to winning and staying on the tour if you lose it your gone even if your name is Tiger.

[loowaters]

The networks do a good job covering the guys that are "in it" particularly on the weekend. Tiger is rarely out of position to win and that's why we see so much of him...and ratings.

[shivaslives]

tiger has won something like 7 out of the last 10 or 11 tourneys he's been entered in. do the math, that translates to quite a bit of airtime. most of those wins he was in the final group on sun. he's the most dominant golfer ever, it's as simple as that. i'm not a tiger cheerleader but anytime you have the opportunity to see the best ever at their particular sport you should do it. we were lucky enough to see michael jordon in basketball, and now tiger in golf.

[Stonewall]

Are you serious...? He hasn't finished outside the top 5 in like, months. I'm not going to check, but I think Doral maybe his worst finish in almost 8 months. I don't recall seeing THAT much of him when he was way back at Carnoustie. The reason we see so much Tiger is rather obvious, he's either always winning or always in a position to win. He attacks history with every start. Enjoy it, or watch the Nationwide Tour.

[pickerjohn]

I'm not really concerned with how much they show Tiger,

as long as they show golf shots. I get so tired of the commentary,

which seems to be a vechicle for making TV stars out of announcers.

The Masters runs without commercial interruption, lets see if they can do it with less

commentary. Set the scene, describe the action, but enough of the idle

chit-chat.

How many of us tune in to golf because of who's announcing or commenting?

I have my favorites and not so favorites, but not the reason I turn it on or off.

Sorry for the rant, its just been building up.

[nikemike]

Maybe cause he's the guy everyone wants to see, even If he isn't in the lead.

 

THIS

[phil75070]

This whole discussion begs the question as to why people watch golf. Tons, as noted here, only want to see Tiger, but not necessarily "everyone" wants only to see Tiger. Some want to see good golf no matter who it is playing it or where they stand, or others would prefer just to see the leaders. Then there are some who root for certain layers for any number of reasons who would just like to see their favorite player once during a telecast.

 

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you may please all the people some of the time, you can even please some of the people all of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all the time.

[skinkman]

this is actually pretty good. Directtv might have the answer with the multiple mix feed..free to watch Tiger, pay per view on every one else.. I think they may do well. Charge 50$ to watch others :good:

[Ronzo]

this is actually pretty good. Directtv might have the answer with the multiple mix feed..free to watch Tiger, pay per view on every one else.. I think they may do well. Charge 50$ to watch others :good:

 

How would they tell watching nice but bland guys like DLIII from the Direct TV paint drying channel?

 

When I'm watching Tiger, I'm watching history being made. I like it better when he has more worthy foils than "some guy in a visor or an Amana hat". People like Phil, VJ, Trevor Immelman, Brandt Snedeker, Geoff Ogilvy, Adam Scott -- and even people like Rory Sabbatini, Sergio Garcia, and Woody Austin, all of whom irritate me a lot -- make Tiger's wins better for having them trying heroically and failing, and making Tiger's losses better for them trying heroically and winning while Tiger fails heroically.

 

If it seems as though I'm prejudiced against the Tour guys who are happy just to pick up a paycheck and work corporate outings, you're absolutely right. I'm not including DLIII in that group, either; the guy's comeback from his ankle injury is heroic in its own way, and I rooted hard for him to win in Houston so he could be there for The Masters. But I feel there are a host of others who are happy to finish 25th consistently. The Tour needs cannon fodder to showcase its stars, and I know that any or all of them could give me 20 strokes a side and beat my fat Word not allowed like a gong. But that doesn't mean I want to turn on a Tour event on TV merely because I need some sleep, and it's better than Sominex.

[floyd]

I agree, there are other golfers besides Tiger.

[GolfMN]

I'm not just talking about this year guys. He has been easily worthy of coverage in every event he has played in so far in 2008 including the masters. Hasn't always been that way.

 

The way I see it, being in the top ten is in position to win, no matter who it is. The leader board is a representation of who the best golfer is at that exact moment in time. If three guys are above Woods, they are playing better than him. They are in as good a position to make a run at it, because their game is on. If you are 5 off the pace in a event like the Masters with a very strong field, you are playing very good golf, it doesn't matter what your name is, that kind of golf puts you in position to make a charge.

 

Naturally, the masses want to see Tiger. The PGA tour is actaully a pretty big thing on TV, I was surprised the first time I saw the numbers. A lot of very casual golfers or non golfers tune in, especially on Sunday. Good ratings among other things bring good money and publicity to the game, that in turn is good.

 

So it is a bit of a no win situation for people like me, because I like to see the game as popular as it is. I just think that ALL the guys in the top ten at any given moment are in equally good position to win and just as likely to do something cool.

[ghodges]

I'm not just talking about this year guys. He has been easily worthy of coverage in every event he has played in so far in 2008 including the masters. Hasn't always been that way.

 

The way I see it, being in the top ten is in position to win, no matter who it is. The leader board is a representation of who the best golfer is at that exact moment in time. If three guys are above Woods, they are playing better than him. They are in as good a position to make a run at it, because their game is on. If you are 5 off the pace in a event like the Masters with a very strong field, you are playing very good golf, it doesn't matter what your name is, that kind of golf puts you in position to make a charge.

 

Naturally, the masses want to see Tiger. The PGA tour is actaully a pretty big thing on TV, I was surprised the first time I saw the numbers. A lot of very casual golfers or non golfers tune in, especially on Sunday. Good ratings among other things bring good money and publicity to the game, that in turn is good.

 

So it is a bit of a no win situation for people like me, because I like to see the game as popular as it is. I just think that ALL the guys in the top ten at any given moment are in equally good position to win and just as likely to do something cool.

 

So you want to see journeyman as much as the player that is making history before our eyes...interesting. Unfortunately for you the media is focused on ratings. And the journeyman golfers that pop up in the top ten don't generate ratings like Tiger. Guess that whole tracking to be greatest of all time thing attracts a few folks. I think it is a no win for you... :D

[golfsll]

TIGER did play bad for him. BUT i guess you werent watching the same masters i was. TIGER DID come in 2nd. and if there had been 2 hole #16 then tiger without even trying would have been in the lead.

[Jer-Jer]

He got 2nd bro...hardly 10th place and usually you broadcast it when someone is close or making a run for the lead...

[stratkidp38]

The thing I hate is "Tiger brought his "B" game Sunday and finished 2nd". Oh yeah? Well Brandt Brought his "D" game Sunday and finished 3rd.

 

I also love the "If Tiger would've made this, or done that, or this he would've won." By the same token, take any player and thats true. "If Gary Player had made this putt, hit this fairway, and done this he would've won." Its a weak argument.

[oregongolf]

Maybe his knee was bothering him?

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/803854...MA&MSNHPHMA

[MoGolf]

Maybe cause he's the guy everyone wants to see, even If he isn't in the lead.

Uhhhhhhh, don't think so pard. A few years ago, TW was in about 16th place on Sunday at the British Open, and all we got on network tv was Tiger "mailing it in". They barely showed the guys in the top 5. THAT is what irks me when he's in the field. They show him even if he's not in contention. Agreed, he usually IS in contention, but when he's not, we still get the "Tiger Show Live".

[itsSKYLINEtime]

Well i purpose that they have a channel just for Tiger. Perhaps the TTWC... The Tiger Woods Channel. On tournament days they can just follow Tiger and the announcers can pronounce their love for him. Then when the tourney ends they can play shows such as Tiger 360 that is poisoning the golf channel. Then the people that enjoy watching others play can see the normal telecast w/o Tiger at all. And the golf channel can return to covering GOLF and not just tiger.

 

As i have said in other threads i am a tiger hater. Not so much because i hate tiger but because i hate how the announcers are up his Word not allowed 24/7 and the amount of airtime he gets is simply ridiculous. I enjoy watching golf and i dont get that when i watch a tourney with tiger in it.

[twgolf]

I know that there are a lot of Tiger haters out there and the TV coverage time just adds fuel to the fire. One thing to keep in mind is that Tiger is not creating this, it is the networks and media. I am sure that Tiger does not have a contract with any of the media stating that he gets "X" amount of coverage at every event he plays in. We hate on him because of the media hype he gets, but honestly I would not want to be in his shoes where every thing I do is reported news. If Jack were playing in today's media world we would be seeing the same thing. Like it or not it all boils down to tv ratings, and Tiger is what is selling. I am sure when Tiger is in the field and the TV ratings are prime sponsors are paying substancial chunks of money to run their ads during network coverage. It does not have to be Tiger, it could be any tour pro, if they were doing what Tiger has been doing over the last 10 years. History is in the making and to some degree every shot has the potential of one step closer to history being made, especially in the majors. I have the feeling that if Tiger would have made some of the putts on Sunday and tied for the lead or took over the lead, lots of people would not be saying they are tired of all of his airtime. Fact is he just did not make them, and finished second three shots back. I guarantee if Phil, Ernie, or a short list of others were in the same position as Tiger was at the Masters, we would have seen all of their shots as well. Notice how the coverage dropped off of Casey when he blew up and fell out of contention.

 

Consider yourself lucky to be in this era of golf and history being made by Tiger. Some day you will be able to say you watched the best player that ever played the game. If not, turn the channel and watch the LPGA, Champions Tour, or the Nationwide Tour. I for one want to be watching every shot when he breaks Jacks major record and the record for total tour wins. The guy has a chance to win every major he tees it up in just like everyone else in the starting field, except everyone else is not five wins away from tying a record that was said to be unbeatable! Give the guy some credit for earning this coverage by his stellar play over the last ten years, I think he has earned it.

[Andariego]

Am I the only one bothered a bit by this?

Yes you are. Come over to my house and watch the majors with my friends, have a few beers, bbq some steaks, watch some golf...relax. I don't get the anxiety and hyper-sensitivity to golf telecasts, some of you seem like your heads are about to explode watching golf on TV? I don't think the complaints many of you have every come across the mind of anybody really. We're just watching a golf tournament on our day off, trying to see who wins, and thats about it!! :D

[gregshawjr]

in response to the originator of the topic

 

he finished second in the tournament, so the network was spot on. In the end he was the closest challenger.

[MoGolf]

in response to the originator of the topic

 

he finished second in the tournament, so the network was spot on. In the end he was the closest challenger.

Nope, he was the first loser.

[deRaiLeD]

I mean yeah every now and then you do want to see a little more of other tour players.

But at the same time Tiger is known for making amazing shots, what people want to see.

So they give him the air time because the ratings are much higher when he is shown.

I am not in any way saying other tour players cant make great shots, but the whole hype around golf now a days is how and when is Tiger gonna have another chip in like the Masters in 05?

So i guess there really is not much any of us can do and I guess we just have to suck it up.

[bulldog8b]

I read the other day that when Tiger won the Masters in '97 he won $466,000. TI just won $1.3 million. Who is most responsible for the huge increase in purse $, overall exposure, ratings, $ to OEms and just a general over all boom in the numbers of people playing golf?

 

That's why he is shown, because he has made golf what it is in the last 10 years. He IS the reason golf has gotten as big as it has as fast as it has. He is a HUGE draw at tourneys and on TV. My step Dad is not a huge golf fan, but he watches tourneys when Tiger is playing and has no interest when he isn't. I am sure there are millions more like him.

 

I'm glad you realized saying he hasn't "earned" his TV time was a poor choice of words, because he has earned his TV time about 100 million times over.

[gregshawjr]

in response to the originator of the topic

 

he finished second in the tournament, so the network was spot on. In the end he was the closest challenger.

 

 

in response to the originator of the topic

 

he finished second in the tournament, so the network was spot on. In the end he was the closest challenger.

Nope, he was the first loser.

 

 

you proved my point.