Evidently, traditional fans got their panties in a twist yesterday because I insinuated (in a commentary on Lance Armstrong) that the rise in Golf’s popularity over the past decade had more to do with interest in Tiger Woods than in the game itself.
It so happens that I’ve been getting under their skin for just as long. The first time came, ironically enough, when I got my panties in a twist because they dissed my interest in IndyCar racing. I responded as follows:
To the sporting snobs who dismiss car racing as a simple-minded, redneck sport (especially those who’d rather sit around for hours watching pot-bellied men club and chase a little ball over manicured lawns until – with all of the suspense of watching paint dry – they manage to plunk it into a little hole in the ground), I have news for you:
IndyCar racing is a sport that requires the steady hands of a surgeon, the daring skill of a jet fighter, and the physical stamina of a marathon runner. And no sport can match the sustained thrill, nail-biting anxiety, and death-defying excitement one gets from watching those Indy cars zoom around the track – jockeying for position at an average speed of over 220 mph … for 500 miles!
(“Female Driver Makes History at Indy Speedway,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 31, 2005)
I was obliged a few years later to be more specific:
I don’t mind admitting that, if Tiger Woods is not playing, I’d rather watch paint dry than watch professional Golf.
(“The U.S. Open: Tiger, Tiger, Tiger!” The iPINIONS Journal, June 17, 2008)
This time, however, I do not have to conjure up yet another way to disabuse my Golf-loving detractors of their presumptions about the popularity of their game. For here’s what CNBC’s Sport Business reported yesterday, seemingly endorsing my diss about Golf without Tiger being just a country-club game (i.e., not even a proper sport):
Often cited for the game’s drop-off are the costs of playing, the time it takes, the perception that it’s a game for snobs and modern distractions such as sitting in front of a computer.
But if there’s one major reason for shrinking interest by Americans in golf, it pretty much starts and ends with the success and ultimate hard times of one player.
‘Tiger Woods changed the game and interest in it,’ said Pat Rishe, professor of sports economics at Webster University.
Enough said? Except that I cannot resist this opportunity to twist the knife a little:
Traditional fans may choose to ignore it, but there has always been a direct correlation between how well Tiger is playing (if he’s playing at all) and TV ratings for Golf. More to the point, this correlation has been on a downward trend for almost five years – ever since Tiger’s well-publicized personal troubles off the course began causing professional problems for him on it.
Tiger is 35. So he can probably compete, physically, for another five years. But if he still hasn’t won his 15th major by this time next year, then I fear he will never be able to compete well enough, mentally, to dethrone Jack Nicklaus as the king of the majors with 18 wins…
But, to give you a sense of how difficult it is for one player to dominate the majors the way Tiger once did, just bear in mind that the last 13 major championships have been won by 13 different players.
(“Tiger, Tiger … Losing Fight,” The iPINIONS Journal, August 15, 2011)
This is why it was hardly surprising that his poor play at last weekend’s British Open caused so many parvenu fans (like me) to tune out. Here’s how premier sports network SB Nation affirmed this Tiger-centric phenomenon on Wednesday:
Rory McIlroy may be the next coming of Tiger Woods inside the ropes but the newly crowned British Open champion has a way to go before he wins over viewers slouched on their couches with TV remotes in their hands…
With Woods … well out of it by the time McIlroy brought his six-stroke advantage to the Royal Liverpool course on Sunday morning, the 26 percent and 25 percent declines in ratings and viewership, respectively, from last year (3.1, 4.4 million) represented the second-lowest figures for a final-round airing since at least 1981.
Frankly, if Tiger has a few more bogey-plagued performances like last weekend’s, I’ll begin dismissing (or dissing) Golf, once again, as nothing more than a lily-white, country-club game that is not worthy of watching on TV.
On second thought, I might tune in if his 23-year-old niece, Cheyenne Woods, begins doing for the women’s game what Tiger began doing for the men’s in 1997, when he won his first major, The Masters. But I suspect that’s expecting a bit too much….
Related commentaries:
Female driver makes history…
U.S. Open: Tiger…
Tiger, Tiger…
The Masters without Tiger…