Fore Please. 119th US Open Walking Championship Thread.

We had the same rule for local favorite Amy Alcott. Agate clerk would go down to her and cut it off. Golf columnist would write about her frequently. So we get a phone call from someone who said, "Why do you write about Amy Alcott all the time when she comes in last place in every tournament?"

 

Yes. It was. (see Dan Jenkins, Dave Anderson or the other old-school wroters. As long as they were still playing. More people than not, many, many more, want to know what Tiget shot every round.

 

I'm "I remember agate" old.

 

Guys, we don't make this stuff up. Our web guy tells me that there are two names in sports that generated exponentially more hits than anyone else combined: Tiger and Tebow. Ratings for tournaments where Tiger is in contention are always higher, much higher. This isn't a case of the media forcing something down everyone's throat. I believe the golf media, or what's left of it, does its best to tell other stories. There was no shortage of "Gary Woodland is a great guy," takes after the U.S. Open. but as long as Tiger is playing and relevant, he's going to get mentioned in almost every single gamer, regardless of what he shoots. Why? Because readers and viewers want to know. It's really that simple.

 

@hondo, you're obviously correct because casual golf patron that I am, I'm looking for Tiger's score before I read the story. Whether you like him or hate him, he's compelling.

 

I don't think Woods' presence in stories during tournaments bothers anybody. The constant focus on him before majors start gets tiresome. Of course it was warranted before the PGA because not only was he Woods, he was the Masters winner. But he was pretty clearly off form before the Open, and seeing people try to come up with reasons he could contend was must-miss TV and print.

 

I watched a couple holes of The Travelers before I came in.

They have Justin Thomas (who plays quick), Franky Red Sauce (moderately quick) and Patrick Cantlay (who is so slow, he makes Ben Crane look like Lee Trevino)........you can just see the other two guys faces in the group as he's over the ball........"Did he fall asleep?"......I timed his second shot into 10........from the time he addressed the ball.......not from the time the caddy gave him yardage to the front.....moisture and wind.......no......from the time he addressed the ball.......it was 17 seconds.

Consequently, they have Finau (fast), Bubba (faster) and Koepka (house on fire fast) in the group behind.

 

The "constant focus" is driven by fan interest. Try going to a major and not writing about Woods from Monday-Wednesday and see what kind of reaction you get from readers.

 

This is slightly off topic, but I have read many times on this board how the tour would be without Tiger, etc.

This is purely from my own viewpoint, but I remember as a teenager in the early 1980's, the pro tennis tour was miles ahead of the PGA in popularity. Miles. Wimbledon was huge, the US Open was huge. Again, I wasn't a particular golf fan back then, but Borg/McEnroe/Connors etc were miles ahead of Watson/Nicklaus etc in popularity.

I understand the reasons for the shift. My only point is that golf has taken a huge step above it's closest rival in the last few decades. Tennis is a blip now.

 

I think there can be coverage of Tiger without the straight fawning and hot takery that goes on. For instance, the idea that he was any kind of favorite heading into the PGA or U.S. Open because, "We saw what he did at Bethpage in 2002!" and "We all know what he did at Pebble in 2000!" was asinine. Straight up asinine. Woods was damn near 20 years younger when he accomplished those victories, and I don't know of any athlete who is still as good 20 years later as he was in the moment -- not to mention one playing on the knees of a 70-year-old and the back of a dead guy. It's just not realistic.

 

When a guy has won one major, it's certainly realistic to think he has a chance in the next couple of them. The '86 Masters got Jack a lot of subsequent pre-major favorite status he probably didn't deserve, but it wasn't fawning per se, just a triumph of hope over facts. It's very hard to strike the note that, "we just saw Tiger do something great, but the odds are it might be the last time."