- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/18/12 at 3:30 pm to molsusports
Golf is down for one reason, and one reason only: because Tiger Woods isn't dominating. It's that simple. If he's dominating, it brings in more fans to see what the hype is about as well as his fans (of whom there are way more than some like to think). Andit also brings about the people who'll watch hoping for him to lose.
Without Tiger dominating the sport, golf will be "down."
Without Tiger dominating the sport, golf will be "down."
Posted on 6/18/12 at 4:12 pm to molsusports
quote:
2) A depth of truly great talent (there are more great pros today than there were even five years ago)
Posted on 6/18/12 at 4:14 pm to CrippleCreek
quote:
'd much rather there be 10 guys who have a real chance to win every major than the current whole field. It'd be much more interesting.
So its MORE interesting to you when you pretty much know who's going to win the tournament before it even starts?
Posted on 6/18/12 at 4:18 pm to patnuh
quote:
quote:
quote:
He has had two other top five finishes this year. Another was = 10.
He was also #2 on the money list last year.
And a guy like Dufner has two tour wins, a top two at the PGA, a top ten at the US Open, is #1 on the money list this year, and is #1 in FedEx cup points.
What's not to like?
Posted on 6/18/12 at 4:19 pm to beatbammer
quote:
So its MORE interesting to you when you pretty much know who's going to win the tournament before it even starts?
I think, and tv ratings would probably back this up, most people would prefer a connection (love or hate) with the players they are watching. No one sticks around for indifference. Unless there are a group of dominant players that we have time to get to know, it is hard to get into the event. It isn't that they have to win every time. Sometimes it is fun to watch a player out of no where win or challenge for a win.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 4:31 pm to Waffle House
quote:
I think, and tv ratings would probably back this up, most people would prefer a connection (love or hate) with the players they are watching. No one sticks around for indifference. Unless there are a group of dominant players that we have time to get to know, it is hard to get into the event.
The ratings bear that out I think - esp with respect to Tiger. As soon as he's out of contention the ratings plummet.
Woods clearly is not playing at the same level he was early last decade - but the interesting thing is him not playing as well has not led to the rise of a young superstar as of yet. There are guys media and fans want to emerge to fill this vacuum but no one has taken off like a young watson, woods, or nicklaus.
I think golf does need another star to rise (or rise from the ashes) to pique the public's interest - even if the recognizable or "name" player doesn't win - if he loses at the very end it lends legitimacy to the younger player who beats him (and potentially gives a kind of "will lebron ever win a big one" storyline to golf)
Posted on 6/18/12 at 4:36 pm to molsusports
IMO, #1, with a little of #2.
With a few exceptions, the majors have not been "won" but rather "not lost" over the last couple of years. In the majors you remember the iconic shots, the duels, etc.
This years Masters was fantastic. Watching the last 5 holes of Bubba Watsons round was great, Sunday @ the Masters golf, and then there was the playoff hook shot. I was a little disappointed by the Open, but I dont discount what Webb Simpson did. But it was anti climactic watching Furyk and McDowell play really poorly, while Simpson quietly turned in a 68.
A really interesting question would be Does Simpson make that last putt if he knew the Open was on the line?
With a few exceptions, the majors have not been "won" but rather "not lost" over the last couple of years. In the majors you remember the iconic shots, the duels, etc.
This years Masters was fantastic. Watching the last 5 holes of Bubba Watsons round was great, Sunday @ the Masters golf, and then there was the playoff hook shot. I was a little disappointed by the Open, but I dont discount what Webb Simpson did. But it was anti climactic watching Furyk and McDowell play really poorly, while Simpson quietly turned in a 68.
A really interesting question would be Does Simpson make that last putt if he knew the Open was on the line?
Posted on 6/18/12 at 4:38 pm to beatbammer
quote:
So its MORE interesting to you when you pretty much know who's going to win the tournament before it even starts?
yeah, having a dominant group that become household names that you can count on to be on the weekend leaderboard of every major would be much more intriguing than the current status quo of this very good but not spectacular golfer had a good weekend. The hometown, and back story change a little, but its become a bit of a retread.
I'm not talking another Tiger. I'm talking a handful of guys that are going to win 3-4 majors in their careers. Some of the recent first timers may become that group, but its about time one of them gets after it.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 5:17 pm to Slickback
quote:
A guy like Webb Simpson will win a big tournament and then he won't finish again in the top 10 for the next year
Know how I know you don't watch any golf? Webb has placed Top 10 in nearly half of all the events he has played in over the past 2 years. Look it up.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 5:30 pm to molsusports
There is a lot of depth which is ok, but who gives a shite about webb oglethorpe the third winning anything. With all these different winners, it makes the US Open more like the John Deere Classic with some no-name winning.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 5:37 pm to CrippleCreek
I think it's 2 but I think #3 needs some thought as well
Yea the course are "fair" meaning if you hit a perfect shot you aren't in trouble, but if you miss at all it just punishes the shite out of you. Basically the winners of Opens are guys who don't mess up and hit solid shots. Nobody goes aggressive because they can't or they will get demolished. Obviously there are exceptions, (Rory last year) but in general the reason new guys are winning is because they aren't making mistakes, not because they are hitting great shots all over the course.
It's like if the NBA playoffs got decided based on who could miss the fewest shots
Yea the course are "fair" meaning if you hit a perfect shot you aren't in trouble, but if you miss at all it just punishes the shite out of you. Basically the winners of Opens are guys who don't mess up and hit solid shots. Nobody goes aggressive because they can't or they will get demolished. Obviously there are exceptions, (Rory last year) but in general the reason new guys are winning is because they aren't making mistakes, not because they are hitting great shots all over the course.
It's like if the NBA playoffs got decided based on who could miss the fewest shots
Posted on 6/18/12 at 6:03 pm to CrippleCreek
quote:
Posted by CrippleCreek I wish it were somewhere in the middle. I don't need a Tiger, but I don't find what we've had lately that great either. The game needs some of these guys to become the 3-4 time major winners.
I agree with you. I like when Tiger is in the mix because it's fun to watch him get pumped up. But I am an avid golfer so I'm watching PGA tournaments every weekend no matter who it is winning. The Masters was good this year, but the US open was a bit underwhelming.
I like having a lot of talent in the field but watching 15 different guys win 15 straight majors is getting old and boring.
I think a lot of people wanted Rory to take the reins after his US win last year, but unfortunately he has gone the complete opposite direction.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 6:33 pm to Slickback
quote:
I think so. A guy like Webb Simpson will win a big tournament and then he won't finish again in the top 10 for the next year; ie Charl Schwartzel and Keegan Bradley, and Darren Clarke.
You don't watch much golf do you? Webb won twice last year and is one of the best Americans on tour.
ETA: Darren Clarke is older and now has his major, he now has 0 fricks to give. As for Charl, he doesn't play all that much in the States. He plays a lot in Europe and on the Sun Shine Tour in Africa.
This post was edited on 6/18/12 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 6/18/12 at 6:46 pm to molsusports
quote:
Do you think this represents:
1) A lack of exceptionalism compared to a few years ago (esp since Tiger, Phil, and maybe Ernie have not dominated in the majors of late)
Who cares if someone dominates the field. I'm more than happy to see other golfers besides the weekly Tiger Show. He can usually be 8 shots off the lead but they will show everyone of his shots. The media said after friday that this was his tournament and his 15th major. yeah...right...
2) A depth of truly great talent (there are more great pros today than there were even five years ago)
It really shows just how much talent there is on the tour.
3) A reflection of another issue. The US Open courses for example are often ridiculously hard. You would think this would be a good thing that would result in the very best players rising to the top more often - but that is not what we've seen. Is it likely that Tiger-proofing courses and making things hellishly hard to play in general disproportionately favors lucky bounces when just a couple bad breaks can down the best players?
this tourney was not tiger proofed. It was setup to show golf skills, not just a draw off the tee, or a fade off the tee, not just bombing drives 350yds.. It showed how all phases of the game needed to be used to win the tournament.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 8:24 pm to joeleblanc
right, but the trend seems to be pretty clear. lots of challenging golf courses that are giving a bunch of different champions.
if it was a matter of cream rising to the crop it would seem like you could pick out a handful of guys who were better - the results seem more random
if it was a matter of cream rising to the crop it would seem like you could pick out a handful of guys who were better - the results seem more random
Posted on 6/21/12 at 7:34 pm to HoLeInOnEr05
Bump ...
Well, well ... looks ole Webb is right in the thick of things.
Well, well ... looks ole Webb is right in the thick of things.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 7:50 pm to molsusports
quote:
The US Open courses for example are often ridiculously hard. You would think this would be a good thing that would result in the very best players rising to the top more often - but that is not what we've seen. Is it likely that Tiger-proofing courses and making things hellishly hard to play in general disproportionately favors lucky bounces when just a couple bad breaks can down the best players?
There are also just US Open type players. Corey Pavin, Curtis Strange, Andy North, Payne Stewart.
Some guys just must enjoy being brutalized. Enjoy a smart and hard fought 72 or 70 now.
Also those guys are "slap it down the middle" guys.
That is why this year Furyk surprised me. That duck hook killed him.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 7:53 pm to LSU alum wannabe
Well shite, ao some point woods is just plain going to get old. I guess when that happens they should quit playing.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 8:05 pm to HoLeInOnEr05
quote:
Well, well ... looks ole Webb is right in the thick of things
Yea I was really looking forward to seeing a guy who finished Top 10 in 17 of his last 40 tournaments to not make Top 10 the rest of the year.
ETA: Let's be honest though, that guy doesn't even know this torunament is going on
This post was edited on 6/21/12 at 8:06 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News