Things turning for Tiger?

[Esox]

One of the things about this thread that bothers me is when the younger posters say it's "tough luck who cares" for the smaller events. If Tiger isn't in an event or the event is a smaller one, why bother to watch. Hell, Thainer basically said get rid of smaller events, pay appearance money and have better fields in fewer events. All he cares about is if he thinks that makes an event "worth watching". Then another young member agreed.

No matter that these events support local charities, give communities something to be proud of, and contribute to local economies.

But at least a few young people can feel they get to watch some exciting golf. And the hell with all the people that have worked hard for years make these smaller events possible.

Kevin

 

[ripper]

Im sure you will. Just as you will see the exact opposite which is defending his every move and defending his every decision.

True, and correct me if I am wrong, but you normally call those fans out on that. I am just doing the same.

 

[JB]

True, and correct me if I am wrong, but you normally call those fans out on that. I am just doing the same.

I call both sides out. I think the idea of Love and Hate in the world of athletics is overboard across the board (not wrong mind you, just overboard). However the gushing over an athlete with the entire defense being "All I care about is what someone does on the golf course" should leave it at that. But when the defense of certain decisions and downright poor actions comes up, the opinions show that it is completely false.

Heck the entire Stevie thing shows just how contradictory the entire fanaticism is with athletes.

 

[Griff]

Given where Tiger was I say yes he is better.

People have to throw out what Tiger was because he will NEVER be that again. His run was epic. I don't understand people thinking he will be epic again.

 

[the_paulo]

I've found this debate interesting. Especially because it really does seem split into two defined camps.

Money motivates so much. But when has a person earned enough money? When do they get to the point where they look back and say, hold on, I may have earned that money, but if I was playing on my local muni with nobody watching and shot the same score, I'd still be broke? Where did the money come from?

 

[bobgeorge]

One of the things about this thread that bothers me is when the younger posters say it's "tough luck who cares" for the smaller events. If Tiger isn't in an event or the event is a smaller one, why bother to watch. Hell, Thainer basically said get rid of smaller events, pay appearance money and have better fields in fewer events. All he cares about is if he thinks that makes an event "worth watching". Then another young member agreed.

No matter that these events support local charities, give communities something to be proud of, and contribute to local economies.

But at least a few young people can feel they get to watch some exciting golf. And the hell with all the people that have worked hard for years make these smaller events possible.

Kevin

I did not say "get rid of small tournaments" but I will say it is the tournament's responsibility to turn a profit or make enough $$$ to survive....not the players. Here is the Washington, DC area the was a tournament sponsored by Kemper in the mid-90s...Kemper Open. I used to go but most of the big stars never came except for John Daly & Greg Norman. One time the announcer on the 1st tee pissed off Greg Norman & he said he would never come back. Then Kemper dropped the tournament. Players used to say they did not like the layout of the course & a couple of times I think players skipped because of the dates. For a while I think Booz Allen Hamilton sponsored it...then it became the AT&T & Tiger was the host.

Also, the LPGA used to host the a major at Bulle Rock in MD....then they left because they said they could not make enough $$$.

It is a free market society and so if corporations/sponsors can pick & chose....players can too. I am not in favor of tournaments paying players to come, but tournaments should do what they have to for survive. For example, the one tournament...either before or after the British Open flies people back & forth for free.

 

[Tadashi70]

I think trying to standardize purses and fields is a terrible idea. Charlotte and Greenbrier are two examples of tourneys with strong fields even though they are held the week before bigger events (The Players and a WGC event, respectively). Players show up because they like the course or the event or whatever.

By forcing players to attend every event on a rotating basis results in the lowest common denominator and cheapens all events, imo.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

So directing the top ten on the tour to have to play in the Viking classic or cancun event, cheapens that event? Please explain....
I understand sponsor obligations but even the diehards of the tour only play 27 or so events a year. This leaves plenty of time for other obligations and family. Adding a few events to a 16 event schedule can only strengthen the tour and keep it in its current heading. And yes I think they should be required. They make bank and playing in the off events does more for the local economy than most of us realize. It's a piece of the pie most of these guys don't look at or realize.

 

[Tadashi70]

I did not say "get rid of small tournaments" but I will say it is the tournament's responsibility to turn a profit or make enough $$$ to survive....not the players. Here is the Washington, DC area the was a tournament sponsored by Kemper in the mid-90s...Kemper Open. I used to go but most of the big stars never came except for John Daly & Greg Norman. One time the announcer on the 1st tee pissed off Greg Norman & he said he would never come back. Then Kemper dropped the tournament. Players used to say they did not like the layout of the course & a couple of times I think players skipped because of the dates. For a while I think Booz Allen Hamilton sponsored it...then it became the AT&T & Tiger was the host.

Also, the LPGA used to host the a major at Bulle Rock in MD....then they left because they said they could not make enough $$$.

It is a free market society and so if corporations/sponsors can pick & chose....players can too. I am not in favor of tournaments paying players to come, but tournaments should do what they have to for survive. For example, the one tournament...either before or after the British Open flies people back & forth for free.

If Phil,bubba, DJ and fowler where to play in the defunked Kemper Open it would still be around. TW brought that event bck to life and now everyone wants to play. This is a prime example of how important that players are to keeping the tour going. We have seen that more than ever with TWs absence over the past two seasons. The PGA has a core of outstanding talent that need to play in all of the events. If TW comes back the way some want, the events he plays in will draw the best in the world. Just think what would happen if he decided to play the fall series along with all the other top golfers.

 

[Damaikis]

I haven't taken part in this much, but why would you force players to play certain events? They can play what they want. If the smaller events can't make money, they need to find a way to do so that isn't forcing people to play at it. What if an old Mom and Pop's store has been in town for a while, then a WalMart get's built right next to it? The small store can't keep up and has to go out of buisness. Do you regulate the amount of people that can go to WalMart so that more people can go to the small store and probably pay more for stuff? No. So why do it on Tour?

 

[the_paulo]

I haven't taken part in this much, but why would you force players to play certain events?

I think what people are perhaps missing here is that players are part of the tour. The tour is the institution here.

 

[JB]

I haven't taken part in this much, but why would you force players to play certain events? They can play what they want. If the smaller events can't make money, they need to find a way to do so that isn't forcing people to play at it. What if an old Mom and Pop's store has been in town for a while, then a WalMart get's built right next to it? The small store can't keep up and has to go out of buisness. Do you regulate the amount of people that can go to WalMart so that more people can go to the small store and probably pay more for stuff? No. So why do it on Tour?

Im not sure how this analogy fits because ALL of these events are part of the tour. Based on this you believe that all smaller events should just go away and the tour be left with none of them.

I think what people are perhaps missing here is that players are part of the tour. The tour is the institution here.

You hit the nail on the head here.

 

[Damaikis]

I get that they're part of the Tour but why should they be forced to play an event that they don't want to? If they don't want to play certain events why should they have to?

 

[JB]

I get that they're part of the Tour but why should they be forced to play an event that they don't want to? If they don't want to play certain events why should they have to?

Because they are not bigger than the tour and recognizing that the tour will flounder without participation is the reason to give back. Its called going the extra mile and unfortunately its lost in professional athletes of today because the fans view most of it as "its all about the earnings" and forget that without those other events that local economies, jobs and even other players are gone. Without those other events, the PGA Tour is the LPGA with more events away from the country than in it. Without those other events, these "millionaires" become "thousanders". The tour as a whole is responsible for the boom in money and the top 5% needs to realize that.

 

[Damaikis]

Because they are not bigger than the tour and recognizing that the tour will flounder without participation is the reason to give back. Its called going the extra mile and unfortunately its lost in professional athletes of today because the fans view most of it as "its all about the earnings" and forget that without those other events that local economies, jobs and even other players are gone. Without those other events, the PGA Tour is the LPGA with more events away from the country than in it. Without those other events, these "millionaires" become "thousanders". The tour as a whole is responsible for the boom in money and the top 5% needs to realize that.

Okay, that makes more sense. You are arguing that they SHOULD play all the events and I agree. I thought that some people were saying that they SHOULD HAVE TO play certain events which I don't agree with. They should recognize that they should play, but I think forcing them to play when they don't want to would be wrong.

 

[JB]

I do think they should have to. Not every year, but make an appearance every 5 years is not asking for much. Its called making sure that the tour that made you rich, will be prospering after you are long gone.

 

[Tadashi70]

I haven't taken part in this much, but why would you force players to play certain events? They can play what they want. If the smaller events can't make money, they need to find a way to do so that isn't forcing people to play at it. What if an old Mom and Pop's store has been in town for a while, then a WalMart get's built right next to it? The small store can't keep up and has to go out of buisness. Do you regulate the amount of people that can go to WalMart so that more people can go to the small store and probably pay more for stuff? No. So why do it on Tour?

Your post has two parts
1. You live in a huge market for any sporting event. The NY/NJ area has long been a supporter of golf. Other regions aren't that lucky. The smaller events created the landscape of the tour. The milwaukees, Quad cities, Mississippi heck even the Orlando markets where top stops. Guys loved PLAYING in these markets and did so without hesitation. Why should the back bone of the tour suffer because millionaire golfers want more money. And you can't say it's not about money. Most events carry huge pursues. If these same top players that are the heart of the tour played in the failing events them they wouldn't fail. If thy can't see that their presence is needed in their own then they may need a push.
Second walmart does exactly what you stated. They open and put small businesses out. I hate that about Walmart and if I can avoid shopping there, I do.
Now what if the PGA decided to do what THP does on a massive scale. The THP faithful would hang in til the end but like any other small business it would have to fit tooth and nail to keep its market share. This is not going to happen but it's as close to home as I could get to make my point. Bigger is not always better, it's the small pieces of the puzzle that complete the land scape

 

[Damaikis]

I still don't think the players should be forced to play. Yes, of course they should. I agree with that. I don't see any reason for them not to in general. However, if they don't want to for whatever reason or for no reason at all, they shouldn't have to. I just don't think it's right.

 

[ripper]

I do think they should have to. Not every year, but make an appearance every 5 years is not asking for much. Its called making sure that the tour that made you rich, will be prospering after you are long gone.

But isnt the real issue here the fact that no one is asking that? The onus seems to be on the Tour to officially request this (via a rule or publicly) and when certain golfers dont comply they can be criticized. Maybe there has been some behind the scenes work done and feelers put out, but that is not the same.

 

[Tadashi70]

I still don't think the players should be forced to play. Yes, of course they should. I agree with that. I don't see any reason for them not to in general. However, if they don't want to for whatever reason or for no reason at all, they shouldn't have to. I just don't think it's right.

No one should be forced, I agree but a strong prodding might be in order. The Dubais and chinas of the world are making string cases in way of golf. Before long you will numerous events held on their golf courses and some of the more established events you like to watch in the states will be gone. The dollars talk and tradition will begin to walk. That is where we are headed.

 

[JB]

But isnt the real issue here the fact that no one is asking that? The onus seems to be on the Tour to officially request this (via a rule or publicly) and when certain golfers dont comply they can be criticized. Maybe there has been some behind the scenes work done and feelers put out, but that is not the same.

We both know that cant happen until the top talent is on board.
But the truth is, they shouldnt have to. Its obvious they do, but they shouldnt have to.
The selfishness of the top talent leads them to have to make sweeping changes.

 

[ripper]

No one should be forced, I agree but a strong prodding might be in order. The Dubais and chinas of the world are making string cases in way of golf. Before long you will numerous events held on their golf courses and some of the more established events you like to watch in the states will be gone. The dollars talk and tradition will begin to walk. That is where we are headed.

I am just kind of throwing this out there, my thoughts arent quite clear yet. As a Canadian, I have no specific feelings one way or another as to keeping events in Milwaukee and other small markets, they are not part of my heritage so my view is different. The fact that the Dubais, Chinas of the world are getting events and small markets are losing them: isnt that the way of the world now? Globalization is a fact and cant be ignored, this is going to happen more and more. I dont really have a problem with that. Ramble over.

 

[JB]

I am just kind of throwing this out there, my thoughts arent quite clear yet. As a Canadian, I have no specific feelings one way or another as to keeping events in Milwaukee and other small markets, they are not part of my heritage so my view is different. The fact that the Dubais, Chinas of the world are getting events and small markets are losing them: isnt that the way of the world now? Globalization is a fact and cant be ignored, this is going to happen more and more. I dont really have a problem with that. Ramble over.

And therein lies the difference. Because just like you are proud of your heritage so are those of this wonderful country. Golf is a game that so many speak of tradition. yet we are one step away from losing all of that tradition on the largest tour in the world.

 

[ripper]

We both know that cant happen until the top talent is on board.
But the truth is, they shouldnt have to. Its obvious they do, but they shouldnt have to.
The selfishness of the top talent leads them to have to make sweeping changes.

Yeah but as you said, we all know they need to, so just do it. Its the same everywhere. Do you think Brady would take a massive pay cut to play in a smaller market with tradition because it would bring in more revenue and save the team from relocation? No. Would Kobe? I am not in any way defending this, and I agree with you philosophically that they should be less selfish, but there comes a time when we need to stop lamenting the fact that they are who they are and deal with it. I think our positions on this are closer than you think they are.

 

[ripper]

And therein lies the difference. Because just like you are proud of your heritage so are those of this wonderful country. Golf is a game that so many speak of tradition. yet we are one step away from losing all of that tradition on the largest tour in the world.

Right and I am not saying dont be proud, just accept life, the Dubais and Chinas are not going away and the US is going to have to share. I dont see any way around this.

 

[JB]

Yeah but as you said, we all know they need to, so just do it. Its the same everywhere. Do you think Brady would take a massive pay cut to play in a smaller market with tradition because it would bring in more revenue and save the team from relocation? No. Would Kobe? I am not in any way defending this, and I agree with you philosophically that they should be less selfish, but there comes a time when we need to stop lamenting the fact that they are who they are and deal with it. I think our positions on this are closer than you think they are.

Does Peyton Manning earn less for playing in Indy?
Neither would have to. That is the point. All of those teams have the same money to spend. Just like I pointed out last night.
There is no defense in selfishness. It is what it is. Some are okay with it, and others are not, but at the end of the day, there is no argument that that is not what it is. Because there are two choices, protect the tour that made you who you are, or line your pockets and we see which way the chips fell. Some are fine with that and dont care, others have issues with it.

You are trying to compare unionized sports to that of non union sports and its not there.