Grouchy Golf Blog

Monday, October 30, 2006 at 7:23 PM

Is Tiger Bad for Golf? Ask Greg Norman

Golf has been an interest of mine since childhood. My grandfather was a golf nut and he passed the bug onto me. However, I wasn't completely bitten. I enjoyed whacking balls at the range once in a while, but that was about the extent of my golf passion. The simple truth was that chicks dug guys who played other sports, so golf naturally took a back seat.

Then in 1996, I was channel surfing on a lazy weekend and caught the final match of the U.S. Amateur Championship at Pumpkin Ridge G.C. I had heard of this golf phenom named Tiger before, and this was my first opportunity to see what all the hoopla was about.

I was instantly mesmerized by Tiger's perfectly textbook swing. I was in awe as he routinely drove the ball over 300 yards, an amazing feat at the time. However, his opponent Steve Scott finished five up after the morning 18 holes. With another 18 to play, it didn't look good for Tiger. But Tiger came roaring back with some truly incredible putting. It was one of the most exciting sports moments that I had ever seen. I was so inspired by Tiger's masterful and passioned performance that I dusted off my hand-me-down Hogan blades and persimmon woods and headed to the range.

10 years later I'm a certified golf nut. I play golf or watch it on TV whenever I get a chance. I subscribe to Golf Digest, Golf Magazine, and Golf World. As a self-taught golfer, I study golf instruction material like a PhD student. I research and experiment with golf equipment to eek out every possible performance gain. I write a freakin' golf blog for chissake! I can trace all this mania back to that one magical day in 1996 at Pumpkin Ridge.

Not only is Tiger Woods the reason that I developed a passion for golf, he was the main catalyst for golf's resurgence over the last 10 years. However, it seems that golf has been stuck in neutral lately. Greg Norman recently voiced his opinions on the subject. Surprisingly, he hints that Tiger is to blame! Is this just another case of a bitter old fart longing for the "good old days"? As a whole, I don't think that you can argue that Tiger hasn't been anything less than a boon to golf. People always prefer tigers over sharks anyway.

Labels: Tiger Woods

 mediaguru @ HookedOnGolfBlog.com said...

Man that was a terribly written story (the one you linked to not yours!). Dude needs to run it through a spell checker. What is "iginificant" and "per cent" ??? And it's all over the map.  

~

 Jason said...

I have heard this before, and I really don't see how they can figure. There are comments in the linked story talking about the increased purse for tournaments and how it puts increased pressure on the golfers. How is this Tiger's fault?

However, how many times have you heard golfers when being interviewed say "we are just playing for 2nd" when talking about Tiger? With the prize money being so large, I can see the mentality of "let Tiger win, I still get my $850,000 for 2nd."  

~

 woundedduck said...

Golf needs rivalries, and when Tiger is always way out alone in first place, it's boring. Personally, I don't give a crap who's playing--all pro golfers are mystifyingly good--but when there's a new raft of Johnny Comelatelys vying for a tourney, the average American golf viewer can only see that Tiger isn't there (and then proceeds to turn off the tv, rush to a golf shop, and spend $500 on a driver which will never be able to help his lousy swing.) In a way, Norman's right--the PGA has gone all in with Tiger, so when he's not in a tourney field, viewers don't show up.  

~

 Anonymous said...

Tiger and all past greats have been good for the game, no question, but I think the future success of tournament golf will really depend on how good of a job TV does in covering it. They just don't show us enough of the real sport and the gut wrenching mental side. They're talking us to death with standings, stats, highlights, recaps, bios and lessons! Don't the suits ever watch the Masters? Television directors can't do much harm to structured sports like baseball or football, but they can and will try to ruin golf on tv.  

~

 Anonymous said...

I think there had to be a leveling off...and even a decline is acceptable after the massive run-up in popularity from the Tiger-effect. NASCAR (from what I hear...um...I don't watch it) is experiencing the same "loss" of viewership after their run-up in popularity last year.
Golf may be declining, but it still attracts a larger viewership than it once did pre-Tiger.  

~

 woundedduck said...

I'll tell you what's bad for golf--Tim Finchem making $4 million! What in the hell has that stiff done to warrant that kind pay check? Sure, he's gotten bigger purses (or was that inflation?) but viewership is down. Players should demand a paycut for him.  

~

 Anonymous said...

Tiger is the best thing that has happened to golf since he arrived on the scene. I was caddying at Doral in 1996 or 1997(his first full season) in a pro am with Rocco Mediate's caddy (Worm) and we asked Worm what he thought about Tiger. He said, quote: " He's the real thing" unquote. High praise to be sure, and Tiger has certainly confirmed all expections and continues to be a force since and for the fore seeable future. Also, he has been nothing less than a stellar example for youth and now with the new technology the kids are the ones whom are really profitting from his example, Thankyou for this forum. Dan the Man, Boston, Ma  

~

 JJ Gowland said...

Inadequate and inappropriate TV coverage is ruining the game of golf.
Commentators talking about Tiger even when he is NOT in the tournament, talking too much and over riding the Skins Game players when we all know the players where microphones so we can hear them, cameras aimed at a players face or back of his head when we really want to see the shot.  

~

Post a Comment

© Golf Grouch 2006