Tiger's Effect(s) on the Game of Golf

[SoxJox]

I thought about putting this in the PGA thread, but thought that it might derail the discussion there.

As intro, let me say that I am a knowledgeable and life-long golf fan, so I am not asking this from an uninformed perspective.

But today Geno Auriemma, in responding to the criticism levied by "our own" CHB (who called UCONN's runaway wins "bad" for women's collegiate basketball), responded by asking rhetorically if a similar reaction was noted when Tiger was winning so dominantly in his prime? Geno suggested that, no, it is not bad for the sport, but [paraphrasing] such dominance motivates competitors to improve their game and challenge if they can.

I know there are all sorts of anecdotal stories out there about Tiger's effect on the game, but I'd be interested in hearing what others think his influence had - directly. Has it made THAT much of a difference on what we are seeing with the likes of Spieth, Day, McElroy, et. all. Or is it just a general evolution?

 

[terrynever]

Geno's comp to Tiger's domination of golf falls short because Tiger did not win everything, year after year, the way recent UConn teams have done. Tiger won around 35 percent of tournaments in his 14-year prime. As far as Tiger and the young golf stars of today, I go back to the 1960s and 1970s when there were an elite corps of star players who consistently challenged Nicklaus. Who inspired those guys? Maybe they inspired themselves, or perhaps their love of golf paved their road to success. Today's young stars openly admit that Tiger's greatest impact came on tournament purses. We have more TV networks to bid against each other today.

What is the richest era for quality depth of stars in golf history? I'll offer the 1970s with Nicklaus, Watson, Trevino, Weiskopf, Ray Floyd and Johnny Miller among the American stars. Today's field of limited American elite along with a strong corps of international stars probably prevails.

 

[TFP]

I think he's directly responsible for this generation of golfers, both in the PGA and recreationally. I feel like this is the highest level of young talent that's ever been in the pro game, and they all grew up watching Tiger.

He's even more responsible for the booming apparel/clothing business that has taken over the game as well. Before his Nike deal everyone dressed like middle aged assholes. Now it's a fashion show out there and is a huge economy, even more than clubs are from an opportunity perspective (don't know the raw numbers).

I can't imagine his influence as anything but positive on the game as a whole.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

My first thought was fitness. Tiger worked out and lifted weights and looked like an athlete playing golf. Now most of the young guys are doing that.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I think the fact that young guys are so good is equipment related more so than the influence of any type of competition. Jack's advantage in his day was his length, Tiger's advantage when he hit the tour was his length. The difference between those guys and the length of other good players was significant. Today, all the guys hit the tour crushing the ball so while DJ may be hitting an 8 iron when Zach Johnson is hitting a 5, Rory, Jason Day, Justin Rose, Spieth, etc are all hitting 7 or 8 iron on holes where DJ crushes it. So the advantage Tiger and Jack had doesn't exist any more.

I was at the Masters one year and Tiger was an amateur playing a practice round with Norman and Faldo. Two of the top players at the time. On 8 they each hit two ball, a driver and a 2-iron off the tee. When we walked up the fairway, there was 4 sets of balls separated by big gaps. The grouping was
Faldo 2 iron
GAP
Faldo D - Norman 2
GAP
Norman D - Woods 2
GAP
Woods D

Tiger changed everything about golf the instant he showed up. Prize money, endorsements, ratings, popularity, etc. UConn isn't exactly driving the sport to new popularity. Plus we've seen this show before with Tennessee 20 years ago.

In relation to the UConn comparison. Tiger's most dominant tournament win (IMO) was the 2000 US Open at Pebble. I think he beat the field every day but one. Meaning he had the lowest score of the day in 3 of the 4 rounds. I think the day he didn't, he was tied for 2nd by a stroke. It translated to a blowout tournament victory but in reality dominant golfers can win a tournament without ever having the lowest score of the day. So he wasn't beating anyone by the golf equivalent of 98-36.

 

[cshea]

Isn't Tiger the reason a lot of the young guys hit the tour as bombers, though? Like BMHH said, Tiger turned tour pro's into professional athletes. They are all freaking jacked now. The equipment has something to do with it, but Tiger changed the way professional golfers train.

Beyond that, I think Tiger is the reason a lot of these kids decided to pick up a golf club in the first place.

 

[SoxJox]

I think one of Tiger's more notable effects on the game was the efforts taken at several courses to "Tiger-proof". Not many programs or individual athletes can have that claim assigned to them.
The noteworthy example is Augusta, which lengthened the course - allegedly to make the course more specifically difficult for the young stud - in the wake of Tiger's 12-shot win in 1997 (admittedly, not immediately, and not in one fell swoop) . At the time, Augusta played at 6,925 yards. 2016 will play at 7,435 - a nearly 500 yard, or 4+ stroke gain.

 

[BigMike]

I think it is different.

I don't think UConn has driven the game to be better, or to improve players around the country

I think he's directly responsible for this generation of golfers, both in the PGA and recreationally. I feel like this is the highest level of young talent that's ever been in the pro game, and they all grew up watching Tiger.

He's even more responsible for the booming apparel/clothing business that has taken over the game as well. Before his Nike deal everyone dressed like middle aged assholes. Now it's a fashion show out there and is a huge economy, even more than clubs are from an opportunity perspective (don't know the raw numbers).

I can't imagine his influence as anything but positive on the game as a whole.

Yeah Tiger changed the game. part of it was the fitness factor.

Part of it was the swing. But he changed the attitude. PMB speaks of the 2000 Open. It was unheard of for a player with a huge lead to play to crush the opposition, normally it was fairways and greens and try to shoot 72 and cruise home. Heck in the 80s - 90s you had the Curtis Strange Nick Faldo crowd who on an open course played for 72 pars and won

People learned from TIger and the game got better as a whole.

In terms of UConn, I don't see where they have moved the game forward.

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

Isn't Tiger the reason a lot of the young guys hit the tour as bombers, though? Like BMHH said, Tiger turned tour pro's into professional athletes. They are all freaking jacked now. The equipment has something to do with it, but Tiger changed the way professional golfers train.

Beyond that, I think Tiger is the reason a lot of these kids decided to pick up a golf club in the first place.

Yes, in part, but also because the Tour reacted to Tiger by lengthening courses instead of strengthening them in other ways (tighter fairways, deeper rough, faster greens).

 

[LoweTek]

I think he's directly responsible for this generation of golfers, both in the PGA and recreationally. I feel like this is the highest level of young talent that's ever been in the pro game, and they all grew up watching Tiger.

He's even more responsible for the booming apparel/clothing business that has taken over the game as well. Before his Nike deal everyone dressed like middle aged assholes. Now it's a fashion show out there and is a huge economy, even more than clubs are from an opportunity perspective (don't know the raw numbers).

I can't imagine his influence as anything but positive on the game as a whole.

But TFP, don't kid yourself, golf is not healthy. I'm in Central Florida and you can't drive ten miles without passing a derelict, shut down golf course. Courses are selling for pennies on the dollar to those still willing to invest in and run them. Public or private, most are bleeding cash. I'm not talking about the tourist tracks. I'm talking about local golf courses closing on a regular basis. This in a place where you can play year 'round.

To the topic, I think Tiger juiced. There, I said it. I've never heard of golfers getting the kind of injuries he got. I also think it is what brought him down, physically and mentally. He demonstrated all the characteristics: superior performance far above peers, profound anger and temper bouts, really odd maladies for his sport, not to mention the holier than thou family mistakes.

I saw him play several times. He was a tremendous talent, like Pedro in his prime, or Jordan; one of the guys you want to say you saw play. Maybe he will come back and be a force once again. Regardless of how or why, he was good for the game.

Speith, Day, Ricky, Scott, all good for the game too. I wish Speith would have grabbed the Slam last year. It would have vaulted the game back into the consciousness of millions.

The PGA tour is healthy. Golf in general isn't. Every little bit helps.

 

[TFP]

But TFP, don't kid yourself, golf is not healthy. I'm in Central Florida and you can't drive ten miles without passing a derelict, shut down golf course. Courses are selling for pennies on the dollar to those still willing to invest in and run them. Public or private, most are bleeding cash. I'm not talking about the tourist tracks. I'm talking about local golf courses closing on a regular basis. This in a place where you can play year 'round.

Where did I say the golf course ownership business was healthy?

 

[SoxJox]

The PGA tour is healthy. Golf in general isn't. Every little bit helps.

It might be worth breaking this out separately, because it likely would generate some great perspectives on where the state of duffer, weekday league, clubhouse tourneys, and semi-local-tourney golf stands in today's golf world.

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

The PGA tour is healthy. Golf in general isn't. Every little bit helps.

It's not like every course will close. If you want to play golf there will be courses, just less of them. Golf experienced a massive popularity surge under Tiger and the bubble is bursting as casuals drift away from the game. Boredom, cost, whatever. Golf always has the advantage of being a sport that people can play as they age. Some players will come back as they get older. The industry getting bigger or smaller shouldn't be much of an issue for actual players.

 

[johnmd20]

But TFP, don't kid yourself, golf is not healthy. I'm in Central Florida and you can't drive ten miles without passing a derelict, shut down golf course. Courses are selling for pennies on the dollar to those still willing to invest in and run them. Public or private, most are bleeding cash. I'm not talking about the tourist tracks. I'm talking about local golf courses closing on a regular basis. This in a place where you can play year 'round.

To the topic, I think Tiger juiced. There, I said it. I've never heard of golfers getting the kind of injuries he got. I also think it is what brought him down, physically and mentally. He demonstrated all the characteristics: superior performance far above peers, profound anger and temper bouts, really odd maladies for his sport, not to mention the holier than thou family mistakes.

I saw him play several times. He was a tremendous talent, like Pedro in his prime, or Jordan; one of the guys you want to say you saw play. Maybe he will come back and be a force once again. Regardless of how or why, he was good for the game.

Speith, Day, Ricky, Scott, all good for the game too. I wish Speith would have grabbed the Slam last year. It would have vaulted the game back into the consciousness of millions.

The PGA tour is healthy. Golf in general isn't. Every little bit helps.

People on this board, including me, have been saying this for years. It's not an extreme position. The minute the PGA started testing, (2008) Tiger got knee surgery and missed 9 months of competition. In the following years, he did have his moments of success(2009 and 2013) but after his scandal he was never the same, mentally or physically.

 

[LoweTek]

Where did I say the golf course ownership business was healthy?

I guess I misinterpreted this:

He's even more responsible for the booming apparel/clothing business that has taken over the game as well. Before his Nike deal everyone dressed like middle aged assholes. Now it's a fashion show out there and is a huge economy, even more than clubs are from an opportunity perspective (don't know the raw numbers).

Sounded fairly confident in the game's economics and health to me. I commented about golf course closures because it's a direct reflection of the (lack of overall) health of the game outside the PGA, not because you said anything about golf course ownership.

 

[TFP]

You did misinterpret, because I was explicitly talking about the clothing/apparel business. You don't think Nike, Under Armour, Adidas, Puma, etc are making more money off their golf clothes now than ever before? This entire segment of the economy started with Nike and Tiger. It's because of them that golf clothes are fashionable and about 66% of the floor at GolfSmith is all clothes.

I disagree that golf course closures = lack of health, too. Could be an indication of a bubble being popped due to overexpansion (also a result of Tiger, to be honest) and is just a market correction (not a sign of poor health).

 

[LoweTek]

http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21636688-though-thriving-parts-asia-golf-struggling-america-and-much-europe

About a year old but covers the topic well. The article makes a Tiger Woods correlation too.

The courses are closing because far fewer people are golfing, especially younger people.

Interestingly, Top Golf is speculated upon as a possible savior for the game.

If you haven't heard of it: http://topgolf.com/us/