Is the PGA Tour/Media focus on Tiger hurting the Tour?

[3fiddyz]

Simple solution

"Hi and welcome to tigervision on CBS, if you want to watch Tigervision stay on this channel, if you want to choose any of the other 20+ matches hit the red button and choose the pairing you wish to watch. Please note choosing your pairing will not include the commentry so you will miss the whit of Sir Nick, numerous college references by Nantzyboy and the non politically correct rambelings of Feherty. You will just be able to follow the pairing of your choosing and listen in peace and quiet"

[bobsuruncle]

The guys who claim that TW is a "media creation" need to have their heads examined. TW like Michael Jordan, Roger Federer, Muhammed Ali, may have been sensationalized in the media ... but most importantly, their ACTIONS on the court, in the ring, etc CREATED their image as all conquering sporting heroes.

The media tried to create the next TW e.g. CW3, AK, Sergio, etc. A fat lot of good that did when their on course performance could not live up to the media hype. The media can try but they do not create an icon, because the media cannot hit a shot or putt the ball on the player's behalf, and as such cannot "make" you win 79x and 14 majors. Perhaps some of our posters believe that like the first landing on the moon, 79 wins was a television hoax. Tiger hit all those miraculous shots because he was not truly "live" on TV. He was given as many "takes" as necessary, and perhaps with a few CGI special effects thrown in for good measure. For the last 15 years we were not really watching "live" golf, we were watching the golf equivalent of Star Wars. We were duped !!!

[bunter101]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1377659217' post='7757111']
[quote name='Andy L' timestamp='1377658943' post='7757085']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1377658615' post='7757061']
[quote name='Andy L' timestamp='1377658264' post='7757035']
[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1377657342' post='7756953']
....
Curiously ... Tiger is second in most pro tour wins ever (and will almost definitely climb to number one next year). Second in, like, history, of most majors won. What he has already done has already gone so far past what ANYONE hitting a golf ball right now has done as to be nearly ridiculous.

[b]Is it really a surprise that the media covers him so thoroughly? Can you actually say doing so is [i]bad[/i] for golf?[/b]
....
[/quote]

Yeah I can say it's bad for golf and that was the point of the thread. I get it, if he's doing well in a tournament, then they should follow him. But when they follow him in lieu of golfers doing much better than him, as they did in the PGA championship, then I believe long term that is bad for the tour. What happens if Tiger suddenly isn't playing golf ever again? What's been done to promote the names of other great golfers in order to continue the interest in watching golf if Tiger isn't playing. Not much, and that's what I believe is harmful.

Companies have hurt themselves by focusing on the cash cow product, and have failed because they couldn't adapt to the market. I could see golf making the same mistake.
[/quote]

It's a good point, but here, in my opinioin, is where the "tour(s)" and the media are disconnected.

It surely is in the best interests of the tour to promote its entire product as much as possible. The Media however, is going to squeeze every last dollar it can out of wherever it can. It's good for the media, but is it good for the sport. That's the question, and I say no it isn't. And history supports that.
[/quote]

True the media and tour are separate entities, and what's good for one entity isn't necessarily good for the other. However perhaps the tour is being too accommodating by allowing Tiger to be the marquee group and allowing a 20 minute gap in his tee time, when the rest of the field is at 10 min, as they were in the PGA Championship.

Was there even such a thing as the "marquee group" before Tiger came along?
[/quote]

The Tour has absolutely [b]zero[/b] say in how the major championships are run, including the PGA Championship. The Tour and the PGA of America are two separate entities.

As for your question about marquee groups, was there ANY Internet coverage before Tiger came along? Not just no, but hell no. In the mid-90's you were lucky to get any coverage on TV, never mind on the Internet. And only during the 2000's did Augusta finally agree to show all 18 holes of The Masters on Sunday.
[/quote]

There was hardly any internet before Tiger came along.
1990 - 1 website
1993 - 150 websites
1996(the year he turned pro) -100,000 to 600,000 websites
Now? 200-300 million?

Oh and 56k modems weren't even around.

Add in the the changes to TV broadcasting.

As i have said before, thank Technology for how big Tiger is.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

[quote name='bobsuruncle' timestamp='1377693987' post='7758201']
....
The guys who claim that TW is a "media creation" need to have their heads examined. TW like Michael Jordan, Roger Federer, Muhammed Ali, may have been sensationalized in the media ... but most importantly, their ACTIONS on the court, in the ring, etc CREATED their image as all conquering sporting heroes.
.....

[/quote]

No one in this thread that I've seen has implied that Tiger is a creation of the media. That's not what this thread is about.

[nochct1]

[quote name='3fiddyz' timestamp='1377693325' post='7758135']
Simple solution

"Hi and welcome to tigervision on CBS, if you want to watch Tigervision stay on this channel, if you want to choose any of the other 20+ matches hit the red button and choose the pairing you wish to watch. Please note choosing your pairing will not include the commentry so you will miss the whit of Sir Nick, numerous college references by Nantzyboy and the non politically correct rambelings of Feherty. You will just be able to follow the pairing of your choosing and listen in peace and quiet"
[/quote]

And how do they make money doing that? They have to have camera people for 20 matches and no commentary means a LOT of dead air time. There would be no commercials bc nobody would by ad space. And there would be limited viewers bc everyone would be watching the "tiger channel"

There's a reason you're not in charge of running the PGA tour.

[bunter101]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1377694661' post='7758253']
[quote name='3fiddyz' timestamp='1377693325' post='7758135']
Simple solution

"Hi and welcome to tigervision on CBS, if you want to watch Tigervision stay on this channel, if you want to choose any of the other 20+ matches hit the red button and choose the pairing you wish to watch. Please note choosing your pairing will not include the commentry so you will miss the whit of Sir Nick, numerous college references by Nantzyboy and the non politically correct rambelings of Feherty. You will just be able to follow the pairing of your choosing and listen in peace and quiet"
[/quote]

And how do they make money doing that? They have to have camera people for 20 matches and no commentary means a LOT of dead air time. There would be no commercials bc nobody would by ad space. And there would be limited viewers bc everyone would be watching the "tiger channel"

There's a reason you're not in charge of running the PGA tour.
[/quote]

That would be the TV network not the PGA Tour.

Two channels, one following Tiger with a Son of Earl disciple on the mic Only shows him and his score. Normal one with the commentators showing all the shots from everyone including Tiger.(or those in contention at least). Ads run at the same time on both channels for a little more $$ to the network.

Everyone is a winner!

[Dave230]

When Tiger Woods came onto the golf scene, he was a black man playing a white man sport and a young man winning in an old man sport. He then proceeded to win his first professional major, the biggest major of the lot in the media, by 12 strokes at age 21. He also had a brilliantly, catchy name. This wasn't Paul Jones. This was [i]Tiger[/i] Woods, who wears red on Sunday because he wants to lap the field. If that wasn't the catalyst for uncontrollable media attention then nothing was.

If I had no interest in golf whatsoever, I would have given Tiger a chance because it has to be said that he was unique player. And then he delivered on the hype in unbelievable fashion. There is a lot to be said for sportsmen that have to deal with incredible expectations yet somehow surpass them.

Even if Jordan Spieth or whoever won 20 majors, I don't think anyone could ever generate the same publicity as Woods.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='bunter101' timestamp='1377694325' post='7758223']
There was hardly any internet before Tiger came along.
1990 - 1 website
1993 - 150 websites
1996(the year he turned pro) -100,000 to 600,000 websites
Now? 200-300 million?

Oh and 56k modems weren't even around.

Add in the the changes to TV broadcasting.

As i have said before, thank Technology for how big Tiger is.
[/quote]

He would be huge without technology. He is the Michael Jordan of golf. Black guy wins The Masters by 12 shots at the age of only 21. Pretty huge story regardless of the Internet due to the racist history of Augusta National and golf in general.

But yes, the idea of a "marquee pairing" on the Internet wasn't even feasible in the early to mid 90's. Hell, it wasn't really even feasible in the early 2000's since very few people had fast enough Internet to watch live video.

[sefus12]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1377639443' post='7755451']
[quote name='Frankie Lob Wedge' timestamp='1377565460' post='7750133']
"degnerate" gamblers. And I am not just talking about Pete Rose. I will not name the guy's name.
[/quote]

His Airness?
[/quote]

I thought that was Phil? Wait, we can't use his name in any unsavory way, can we?

[sefus12]

[quote name='Andy L' timestamp='1377658264' post='7757035']
[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1377657342' post='7756953']
....
Curiously ... Tiger is second in most pro tour wins ever (and will almost definitely climb to number one next year). Second in, like, history, of most majors won. What he has already done has already gone so far past what ANYONE hitting a golf ball right now has done as to be nearly ridiculous.

[b]Is it really a surprise that the media covers him so thoroughly? Can you actually say doing so is [i]bad[/i] for golf?[/b]
....
[/quote]

Yeah I can say it's bad for golf and that was the point of the thread. I get it, if he's doing well in a tournament, then they should follow him. But when they follow him in lieu of golfers doing much better than him, as they did in the PGA championship, then I believe long term that is bad for the tour. What happens if Tiger suddenly isn't playing golf ever again? What's been done to promote the names of other great golfers in order to continue the interest in watching golf if Tiger isn't playing. Not much, and that's what I believe is harmful.

Companies have hurt themselves by focusing on the cash cow product, and have failed because they couldn't adapt to the market. I could see golf making the same mistake.
[/quote]

That's the thing. Companies DID adapt to the market. The market continuously says that more Tiger equals more TV viewership which in turn means more money. Some seem to be mixing emotion (they don't like Tiger) with simple business economics. I'm sorry, but showing more of Matt Kuchar and Luke Donald and Bud Cauley simply doesn't bring the viewership that Tiger brings. That's why you keep seeing him on TV.

[Playaway]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1377650596' post='7756301']
Honestly I don't care if they show his shots. It's every other damned thing he does that they harp on.

"Just look at Tiger walk off the tee box. Isn't that amazing?"
"Look at Tiger eat his sandwich. He has a hunger that we are not familiar with"
"Hey check out Tiger looking for his ball. He hits the best offline shots I've ever seen!!!"

The absolute WORST was last year with the TigeRory BFF love fest. <barf>
[/quote]

Yes, Vin, we hear you. But, let's face it, Tiger Woods is a walking, breathing, headline.

Like him or not, his situation with Elin, the hydrant, all of that just added to the big rolling snowball that is Tiger Woods. It's the Kardasian syndrome. Once you become news, everything and anything you do just accelerates your notoriety.

Our society is sick, hella sick.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Playaway' timestamp='1377700525' post='7758837']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1377650596' post='7756301']
Honestly I don't care if they show his shots. It's every other damned thing he does that they harp on.

"Just look at Tiger walk off the tee box. Isn't that amazing?"
"Look at Tiger eat his sandwich. He has a hunger that we are not familiar with"
"Hey check out Tiger looking for his ball. He hits the best offline shots I've ever seen!!!"

The absolute WORST was last year with the TigeRory BFF love fest. <barf>
[/quote]

Yes, Vin, we hear you. But, let's face it, Tiger Woods is a walking, breathing, headline.

Like him or not, his situation with Elin, the hydrant, all of that just added to the big rolling snowball that is Tiger Woods. It's the Kardasian syndrome. Once you become news, everything and anything you do just accelerates your notoriety.

Our society is sick, hella sick.
[/quote]

Yes it is. Couple weeks ago Golf Channel, ESPN, and Golf.com all put a headline on their website that Tiger had signed up for The Barclays event. I'm sitting there thinking, "Why in the world is this a headline?!" He wants to win the $10m bonus just like everyone else, so of course he signed up for the event. You didn't see headlines when the other 119 guys in the field signed up for it.

Literally everything the guy does is treated like breaking news by the media. They've got a headline right now about him withdrawing from Begay's charity event due to his bad back. Why is that headline-worthy?

[Playaway]

[quote name='Andy L' timestamp='1377658264' post='7757035']
[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1377657342' post='7756953']

....
Curiously ... Tiger is second in most pro tour wins ever (and will almost definitely climb to number one next year). Second in, like, history, of most majors won. What he has already done has already gone so far past what ANYONE hitting a golf ball right now has done as to be nearly ridiculous.

[b]Is it really a surprise that the media covers him so thoroughly? Can you actually say doing so is [i]bad[/i] for golf?[/b]
....
[/quote]

Yeah I can say it's bad for golf and that was the point of the thread. I get it, if he's doing well in a tournament, then they should follow him. But when they follow him in lieu of golfers doing much better than him, as they did in the PGA championship, then I believe long term that is bad for the tour. What happens if Tiger suddenly isn't playing golf ever again? What's been done to promote the names of other great golfers in order to continue the interest in watching golf if Tiger isn't playing. Not much, and that's what I believe is harmful.

Companies have hurt themselves by focusing on the cash cow product, and have failed because they couldn't adapt to the market. I could see golf making the same mistake.
[/quote]

As a fanatic, Tiger playing badly is a bigger story than Matt Every is at 2 shots back. It's just the way it is. The man is a walking part of golf history. It don't get much bigger.

If some guy starts lighting it up (multiple wins) the landscape may change. But like some thug said when the funky comic was bombing, "bring back the bimbos".

[3fiddyz]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1377694661' post='7758253']
[quote name='3fiddyz' timestamp='1377693325' post='7758135']
Simple solution

"Hi and welcome to tigervision on CBS, if you want to watch Tigervision stay on this channel, if you want to choose any of the other 20+ matches hit the red button and choose the pairing you wish to watch. Please note choosing your pairing will not include the commentry so you will miss the whit of Sir Nick, numerous college references by Nantzyboy and the non politically correct rambelings of Feherty. You will just be able to follow the pairing of your choosing and listen in peace and quiet"
[/quote]

And how do they make money doing that? They have to have camera people for 20 matches and no commentary means a LOT of dead air time. There would be no commercials bc nobody would by ad space. And there would be limited viewers bc everyone would be watching the "tiger channel"

There's a reason you're not in charge of running the PGA tour.
[/quote]

Do you not have the red button over the pond? Still has adverts during the break
[quote name='bunter101' timestamp='1377696549' post='7758385']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1377694661' post='7758253']
[quote name='3fiddyz' timestamp='1377693325' post='7758135']
Simple solution

"Hi and welcome to tigervision on CBS, if you want to watch Tigervision stay on this channel, if you want to choose any of the other 20+ matches hit the red button and choose the pairing you wish to watch. Please note choosing your pairing will not include the commentry so you will miss the whit of Sir Nick, numerous college references by Nantzyboy and the non politically correct rambelings of Feherty. You will just be able to follow the pairing of your choosing and listen in peace and quiet"
[/quote]

And how do they make money doing that? They have to have camera people for 20 matches and no commentary means a LOT of dead air time. There would be no commercials bc nobody would by ad space. And there would be limited viewers bc everyone would be watching the "tiger channel"

There's a reason you're not in charge of running the PGA tour.
[/quote]

That would be the TV network not the PGA Tour.

Two channels, one following Tiger with a Son of Earl disciple on the mic Only shows him and his score. Normal one with the commentators showing all the shots from everyone including Tiger.(or those in contention at least). Ads run at the same time on both channels for a little more $$ to the network.

Everyone is a winner!
[/quote]

I take it you dont have the Red Button in the states? As bunter101 says you still get advert revenues, but on 2 channels so you can sell more advertising space. Camera crews are out there anyway either following or on the fixed towers... I was being slightly fecicious with regards to choose one of your 20 pairs but durring current broadcasts here you get the choice of about 3 different rounds to follow. And one of those rounds are the leaders or someone like Tiger.

How do you have dead air time? Your "watching" the golf, not listening too it! But in the instance of just 3 feeds you would get commentry on each of those...

[BlackDiamondPar5]

In my opinion golf needs to do a better job marketing the other players on tour, not just primarily relying one guy. To continue putting all the emphasis on Tiger, even when he's doing mediocre in a tournament is a disservice. This mania will eventually manifest itself into fan/viewer apathy when Tiger is eventually done playing or being dominant in the game.

This isn't about whether you like Tiger or not. But the fact is that Tiger has been a significant force in golf for nearly 17 years. At 37 he's well over half way through his era of dominance. Perhaps he's got 10 years left as a significant force, and perhaps less, depending on how his body holds out.

For the long term good of the sport, golf/media needs to stop thinking that we need one guy to follow, and focus on a group of great and interesting players to follow.. A perfect example of one of these types of players is Rickie Fowler. He's not much of a winner, but he has a huge following, especially with the younger crowd and does a lot to cultivate fans through social media, autograph signing etc. The young crowd is the future of golf.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Andy L' timestamp='1377704059' post='7759287']
For the long term good of the sport, golf/media needs to stop thinking that we need one guy to follow, and focus on a group of great and interesting players to follow.. A perfect example of one of these types of players is Rickie Fowler. He's not much of a winner, but he has a huge following, especially with the younger crowd and does a lot to cultivate fans through social media, autograph signing etc. The young crowd is the future of golf.
[/quote]

Which is precisely the problem. Fowler is a personality, but not a winner. Rory is the guy that needs to step it up. He has all the talent in the world and went on a great run at the end of 2012 with 3 very big wins in a short period of time. Just needs to calm down all the distractions in his life (sponsor changes, management changes, moving to a new home, etc.).

[Playaway]

[quote name='Andy L' timestamp='1377704059' post='7759287']
In my opinion golf needs to do a better job marketing the other players on tour, not just primarily relying one guy. To continue putting all the emphasis on Tiger, even when he's doing mediocre in a tournament is a disservice. This mania will eventually manifest itself into fan/viewer apathy when Tiger is eventually done playing or being dominant in the game.

This isn't about whether you like Tiger or not. But the fact is that Tiger has been a significant force in golf for nearly 17 years. At 37 he's well over half way through his era of dominance. Perhaps he's got 10 years left as a significant force, and perhaps less, depending on how his body holds out.

For the long term good of the sport, golf/media needs to stop thinking that we need one guy to follow, and focus on a group of great and interesting players to follow.. A perfect example of one of these types of players is Rickie Fowler. He's not much of a winner, but he has a huge following, especially with the younger crowd and does a lot to cultivate fans through social media, autograph signing etc. The young crowd is the future of golf.
[/quote]

Hamburger sizzle ain't like steak sizzle.

[monkeynaut]

Simple solution

 

"Hi and welcome to tigervision on CBS, if you want to watch Tigervision stay on this channel, if you want to choose any of the other 20+ matches hit the red button and choose the pairing you wish to watch. Please note choosing your pairing will not include the commentry so you will miss the whit of Sir Nick, numerous college references by Nantzyboy and the non politically correct rambelings of Feherty. You will just be able to follow the pairing of your choosing and listen in peace and quiet" :)

 

And how do they make money doing that? They have to have camera people for 20 matches and no commentary means a LOT of dead air time. There would be no commercials bc nobody would by ad space. And there would be limited viewers bc everyone would be watching the "tiger channel"

 

There's a reason you're not in charge of running the PGA tour.

Yes! Exactly! There is A reason your not in charge of running the tour. And that single reason is this 20+ matches idea. Congratulations. If it weren't for that reason you would be running the tour. MAYBE even all of television.

I hope you're happy!

 

When Tiger Woods came onto the golf scene, he was a black man playing a white man sport and a young man winning in an old man sport. He then proceeded to win his first professional major, the biggest major of the lot in the media, by 12 strokes at age 21. He also had a brilliantly, catchy name. This wasn't Paul Jones. This was Tiger Woods, who wears red on Sunday because he wants to lap the field. If that wasn't the catalyst for uncontrollable media attention then nothing was.

 

If I had no interest in golf whatsoever, I would have given Tiger a chance because it has to be said that he was unique player. And then he delivered on the hype in unbelievable fashion. There is a lot to be said for sportsmen that have to deal with incredible expectations yet somehow surpass them.

 

Even if Jordan Spieth or whoever won 20 majors, I don't think anyone could ever generate the same publicity as Woods.

A) Tiger is part black. Even he calls himself multi-cultural.

B) Seve Ballesteros was a young man playing an old mans game. So was Jack Nicklaus So was Arnold Palmer. So was Bobby Jones.... Young men happen every so often.

C) Tiger, The Golden Bear, The Shark... golf has had nick names before.

D) Tiger wore black and red? Jordan wore black and red. Black and red happened before. See bottom.

E) I had no interest in golf until Carl Spackler. He was a major influence on Happy Gilmore.

F) You'd better believe if somebody hit 20 majors they would generate the same publicity. That's 20. Look what happened with Rory after 2.

 

i was bored when i posted all this.

[golfortennis]

[quote name='PhilsFanDrew' timestamp='1377691828' post='7758057'] [quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1377690532' post='7757999'] The fascination with Tiger is driven by the fans, not driven by the media. One only has to look at the tv ratings of golf tournaments when Tiger is either not playing or not in contention. If you take Tiger out of the mix there really aren't many golfers who spark major fan interest and who win or are in contention on Sunday on a regular basis let alone over a span of years. [/quote] It's driven by fans today because Tiger was foisted upon us by the media from the get go. Sometimes this works as the athlete they push is the real deal talent wise and can justify the hype. Other times you get Michelle Wie. Most of the Tiger fans who are just casual observers of golf and don't really understand the game rely heavily on the sports media to form their opinion for them. [b]People give themselves too much credit in believing that the media is catering to them and their interests[/b]. The media is largely agenda driven and shapes the opinions of most. [/quote]

Mike Lupica once let this cat out of the bag on The Sports Reporters. Not 5 minutes after saying they give the public what they want, the question of steroids and baseball, and the media's coverage of it vis-a-vis the apparent lack of interest from the public, and he said "They don't vote on what we cover." Wonder if he truly understood what he had ust said.

[coachieboy]

[quote name='Andy L' timestamp='1377704059' post='7759287']
In my opinion golf needs to do a better job marketing the other players on tour, not just primarily relying one guy. To continue putting all the emphasis on Tiger, even when he's doing mediocre in a tournament is a disservice. This mania will eventually manifest itself into fan/viewer apathy when Tiger is eventually done playing or being dominant in the game.

This isn't about whether you like Tiger or not. But the fact is that Tiger has been a significant force in golf for nearly 17 years. At 37 he's well over half way through his era of dominance. Perhaps he's got 10 years left as a significant force, and perhaps less, depending on how his body holds out.

For the long term good of the sport, golf/media needs to stop thinking that we need one guy to follow, and focus on a group of great and interesting players to follow.. A perfect example of one of these types of players is Rickie Fowler. He's not much of a winner, but he has a huge following, especially with the younger crowd and does a lot to cultivate fans through social media, autograph signing etc. The young crowd is the future of golf.


I love jelly beans But if i eat them everyday for a week I get sick of them.
[/quote]

[Dave230]

[quote name='monkeynaut' timestamp='1377712166' post='7760209']
A) Tiger is part black. Even he calls himself multi-cultural.
B) Seve Ballesteros was a young man playing an old mans game. So was Jack Nicklaus So was Arnold Palmer. So was Bobby Jones.... Young men happen every so often.
C) Tiger, The Golden Bear, The Shark... golf has had nick names before.
D) Tiger wore black and red? Jordan wore black and red. Black and red happened before. See bottom.
E) I had no interest in golf until Carl Spackler. He was a major influence on Happy Gilmore.
F) You'd better believe if somebody hit 20 majors they would generate the same publicity. That's 20. Look what happened with Rory after 2.
[/quote]

Other players could have a significant impact. I doubt any other player could have as significant of an impact. Appearances are worth a lot, who sells better a young, black, athletic golfer or an average upper-class, overweight, country club professional?

It's well understood that Tiger make golf a lot cooler than it was. And everyone knows who Tiger Woods is, which is rare for a golfer. I say this as a hater of Tiger fanboyism but credit where it's due.

As for Tiger now, I dislike the complete dominance that Tiger has on the coverage in the US and it is not healthy. I often complain about that. But it's what happens when you have a media monster created by Tiger Woods' circumstances and society's increased need for stardom in everything they watch means that we have to put up with it. Yet you can hardly say that is either surprising or undeserved. I'm sure Tiger sometimes regrets throwing himself into the hype machine with 'Hello World'. I mean his father once said that '[color=#444444]He is the [/color][color=#444444][b]Chosen One[/b][/color][color=#444444]. He'll have the power to impact nations. Not people. Nations.' Then he might able to live a normal life for a day.[/color]

[color=#444444]In the future, I totally agree with the above post. If we had more coverage on other golfers, then golf would be in a much healthier position.[/color]

[bscinstnct]

Just one guy who wins

And wins

And wins

And wins

The "public" has lot of stuff being thrown at them. Lots of sports, geopolitical free for all, Kate Upton

Golf? Booooooring. Seriously, you think people are going to sit there and watch an out of shape guy standing over a ball that is not

Moving?

Capture the imagination of the masses. Or else, they willchange the channel

You can market Duffner, Fowler, Poulter all you want

Public sees through it.

They know they are softies.

[Sean2]

Dufner. One "f". :-)

[Bigjim1022]

Lots of people are saying that the young golfers are the future in golf, and to the extent that there will be warm bodies hitting shots from fairways that's true.

My question: who in the group of "young guns" is the next superstar? The guy that attracts crowds, hordes really?

I remember the last group if "young guns", Charles Howell IIi was in that group, can't remember who else.

The point is that in order for the coverage to be shifted from Tiger, somebody has to force the media to switch. How do they do that? By winning a lot and in extraordinary fashion. Not win then disappear for 6 months to a year at a time.

[Sean2]

The next superstar? It seems they only come along once a generation. The next superstar my only be child right now.

[Bigjim1022]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1377743876' post='7763189']
The next superstar? It seems they only come along once a generation. The next superstar my only be child right now.
[/quote]
Exactly. Can't blame the media, TV etc for taking advantage while it lasts.

[3fiddyz]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1377738623' post='7762713']
Dufner. One "f". :-)
[/quote]

Only one f'in duffer?

[Vindog]

Okay I have to ask.

Why are we mentioning Jordan Speith in here? A little premature, eh?

[Playaway]

WTF's a Jordan Speith?

[Vindog]

[quote name='Playaway' timestamp='1377917834' post='7775337']
WTF's a Jordan Speith?
[/quote]

I before E unless after C or if we're talking about a golfer named Speith?

Okay sorry, my bad Spieth. Spieth