The Ryder Cup might be interesting this year

Which backs up trifecta's point.

 

From Bloomberg ...

 

What's that got to do with the Ryder Cup, Evil?

 

It had to do with the point made earlier about Tiger and ratings.

I'm interested to see what happens here in the next year or so if Tiger doesn't get his shit together. There was never any expectation for the Greenbrier Classic to get TV ratings. That's an unfair comparison, anyway, because the Greenbrier replaced the Buick, which had Tiger in the field.

Obviously, there are levels of tournaments ... the majors and the Players, the WGC events, the Others That Tiger Would Grace His Presence With (Buick, Charlotte, AT&T National, etc.), and the rest (Hartford, Greensboro, Memphis, etc.). Sponsors loved to be in on the WGC events because Tiger was around and competing, and that makes for compelling television. So what if he all of a sudden is no better than say, Boo Weekley, playing middle-of-the-pack golf or worse for a sustained period of time?

I'm not surprised at all that this is happening. You could see it from a mile away. TV and the Tour tried so hard to market Tiger and Phil that when neither is in contention, no one knows anybody else out there. Steve Stricker is a good golfer with a great story, but who the hell other than the diehards knows anything about him? Same with guys like Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson, etc. The networks have done this to themselves by breathlessly sucking up to Tiger for so many years.

 

Good point, Cosmo, but the writers are equally as guilty.

I've had two prominent golf writers tell me that all their editors care about is Tiger, because that's all they think anyone reads. One told me when he called in his story from the Bridgestone last week that his editor told him "Nobody cares why Hunter Mahan won. They care why Tiger finished 78th."

Tiger is important to write about. Bob Green, the iconic AP golf writer for more than a generation and a half, wrote about Arnie and Jack because they were the story during most of his stint. But he also wrote about Watson and Trevino and Floyd and Player when they won.

It's a circular argument. And I'm not sure we're ever getting out of the loop.

 

You're right, Bird. I mean, basically, if Tiger isn't playing in a tournament, it is considered meaningless, which is frustrating for golf fans. Heck, I enjoyed watching the Greenbrier Classic. Kinda cool to watch guys like Appleby go for broke on an easy course. It's different. Just from covering a few PGA events, I was amazed at all of the personal stories out there for different guys. I wish people would take a chance to get to know someone other than Tiger and Phil. Jeff Overton is a neat story. Hell, his mom won a city golf tournament when she was seven months pregnant with him. Matt Kuchar's resurgence is fascinating. The guy went from can't miss to obscure to consistent golfer. I covered him winning a Nationwide event a few years back and he couldn't have been more accomodating. Erik Compton played in that event too, and that guy goes out of his way not to hide his heart transplants. He wants to be an inspiration to people, but no one wants to read those stories.

Tiger Tiger Tiger Tiger blah blah blah blah. Give me something else interesting. Sorry, rant over.

 

I still don't think the Ryder Cup ratings have anything to do with Tiger playing or not playing. It's just not the same type of event as the run-of-the-mill PGA Tour stop.

I just don't think there are as many people, post-scandal especially, who think, "Gosh, Tiger's not playing in this Ryder Cup thingy, so I'm not gonna watch."

It's a different beast.

But you make a very good point, Cosmo. Tiger has been cock-blocking, so to speak, a ton of good stories.

 

As NASCAR is learning with Junior, there are real financial dangers in having your most popular (or, more accurately, audience-attracting) athlete become a non-performer. Not that I think that's where Woods is headed, but the danger remains.

 

The celebrity lure is too tough for people to escape. Not sure why. The perception that an event or sport is somehow lessened if Tiger (or Federer or the Lakers or USC [football] or Duke [basketball]) is not contending is purely mental and a hurdle that is difficult to scale. Sure, if a sport's No. 1 player decides not to compete in X event, that event is lessened because it does not have the No. 1 player. But that does not apply to golf. The best players are playing; Tiger just doesn't happen to be among them.

A year ago, "I watch Tiger because he's the best golfer in the world and does incredible things."

That no longer applies. In any form.

So why do you watch Tiger?

Because he may find the switch at any moment and become phenomenal again? Because it's fascinating to see him fall deeper into the abyss of mediocrity? Because maybe one day he'll just go postal out there and kill someone?

And if he's playing at the same level in August 2011, will you still be watching Tiger? And why? Will that editor still insist that "People want to know why Tiger finished 52nd; they don't care that Rory McIlroy won his third tournament in a row." ?

And for how long can this go on?

 

Great post.

I think it's that golf has yet to find the next big thing. It seems as though every time a guy is annointed the next Tiger, he falls flat on his face (Sergio is still looking for major No. 1). Nobody has won like Tiger, and as BTE mentioned, people are waiting for him to snap out of it.

I'm hoping guys like Rory McIlroy and Anthony Kim can start winning a bit more often, giving golf fans, and non-fans alike, something else to tune into week in and week out.

 

Because you want to see the meltdown. It might not be of Dalyesque proportions, with the shakes and the tears, but you want to see the wheels come off and him hell at a heckler -- or The Biggest Fucking Asshole on a Bag go after a fan to protect his boss.

 

Um Yeah, I'm not ready to write Tiger off yet. No. Way.
Yeah he's not playing well this year - a slump for sure - but he will win more majors.