The PGA Championship

[Hacker]

Sorry jb, it wasn't the closeness of the tourney that was the draw, it was Tiger....he hasn't been contending in the PGA since 2002.....I mean the 2004 PGA had a 3-man, 3 hole play-off - Does it get much more exciting than that???

......only if Tiger is involved.

I'm loving this discussion btw - nothing better than debating an issue in and intelligent way with good points being made on both sides

[Shivas Irons]

it wasn't the closeness of the tourney that was the draw, it was Tiger....

Agreed, there's no doubt that if Tiger is in the field/lead the ratings will increase. This is because the casual, and non-golf fan will watch. They want to see Tiger, just like they want to see Michelle Wie.
However, those of us who watch pretty much every PGA tournament see enough of Tiger and understand there is no correlation between drawing a large audience and having an exciting finish. You want an increase in ratings just insert Tiger, or Michelle Wie, or the ambulance that Michelle is riding in.
The increase in ratings is not from hard core golf fans watching, it's from everyone else who normally would not watch tuning in.

[Andru]

Agreed, there's no doubt that if Tiger is in the field/lead the ratings will increase. This is because the casual, and non-golf fan will watch. They want to see Tiger, just like they want to see Michelle Wie.
However, those of us who watch pretty much every PGA tournament see enough of Tiger and understand there is no correlation between drawing a large audience and having an exciting finish. You want an increase in ratings just insert Tiger, or Michelle Wie, or the ambulance that Michelle is riding in.
The increase in ratings is not from hard core golf fans watching, it's from everyone else who normally would not watch tuning in.

That's very presumptious and arrogant. To assume that people watch Tiger because they're fly by night fans is ridiculous.

I hardly watch a tournament when Tiger's not in the field. If I'm going to invest 3 hours on Sunday afternoon I want to see the best in the game and you can hardly call me fly by night. I spend my holidays flying around the continent to see the PGA live.

People watch Tiger because he's the best. If you're a true golfer and you can't appreciate how talented this guy is? Then I'd say you're actually a sports fan and you like the competition. You're not really a 'Golf Fan'.

Now Comparing Tiger Woods and Michelle Wie is really obnoxious. Tiger has 12 majors, 6 USga Amateur titles. People watch Tiger because he's the best. He's going to chip in on the 16th green at Augusta, Hit a 6 iron around a tree over water to a tucked pin from a bunker to win the CanOpen, He's going to hit a 3 iron 240 yards from a bunker pin high. That's why people watch Tiger.

[jbrace]

If you're a true golfer and you can't appreciate how talented this guy is? Then I'd say you're actually a sports fan and you like the competition. You're not really a 'Golf Fan'.

That's bullsh1t. You can be "true golfer" and appreciate Tiger for what he is, yet at the same time not necessarily enjoy watching him completely dominate the game. They do not go hand in hand. To insinuate that a person is not a real golf fan just because he/she does not want to see Tiger every single time is also presumptuous and arrogant.

The ratings are like this because fans want to see something out of the ordinary. If Tiger is in contention every tourney and wins every other day but also loses tournament that he should have won, that’s not greatness and fans will not tune in to watch.

You are contradicting yourself here. Think about it. The fans want to see something out of the ordinary. Everyone watched Tiger win the 97 Masters because it was out of the ordinary (at the time, young phenom, coming out party, etc.) and 2000 US Open because he completely stomped the field. If this becomes the norm as opposed to the exception as in Scenario 1, I honestly don't think it would be better.

But whatever. That's my theory, you guys have yours.

[mberube]

You are contradicting yourself here. Think about it. The fans want to see something out of the ordinary. Everyone watched Tiger win the 97 Masters because it was out of the ordinary (at the time, young phenom, coming out party, etc.) and 2000 US Open because he completely stomped the field. If this becomes the norm as opposed to the exception as in Scenario 1, I honestly don't think it would be better.

But whatever. That's my theory, you guys have yours.

I don’t see where I contradict myself.

He wins by blowing out the field = lots of fans watching.

He wins some time like during his “slump”= ratings are down.

[Shivas Irons]

That's very presumptious and arrogant. .

No, it's not, but your response to my post is.

I hardly watch a tournament when Tiger's not in the field. If I'm going to invest 3 hours on Sunday afternoon I want to see the best in the game and you can hardly call me fly by night..

...so this means you do not watch the LPGA, the Champions tour, the Nationwide tour, the Euro tour etc. and you would rather watch Tiger scratch his crotch and eat banana than watch Mike Weir knock one stiff.

People watch Tiger because he's the best. .

Can't argue with that.

Now Comparing Tiger Woods and Michelle Wie is really obnoxious.

No, it isn't, but your response is. We are talking about TV ratings here. Wie increases those by 50% when she's in the field, so there's an obvious comparison.
Andru, I was merely pointing out that, from my perspective on the couch this was not an exciting tournament. If I was there I'm sure I would feel differently. I'm not saying I don't enjoy Tigers shot making, but there's no need to say I'm presumtuous, arrogant, and obnoxious because I thought the tournament was boring.

[Andru]

No, it isn't, but your response is. We are talking about TV ratings here. Wie increases those by 50% when she's in the field, so there's an obvious comparison.
Andru, I was merely pointing out that, from my perspective on the couch this was not an exciting tournament. If I was there I'm sure I would feel differently. I'm not saying I don't enjoy Tigers shot making, but there's no need to say I'm presumtuous, arrogant, and obnoxious because I thought the tournament was boring.

Me callign you presumtious and arrogant had absolutely nothing to do with whether you enjoyed the tourney or not. It was this.

It's a matter of people wanting to be part of popular culture and wanting to be part of the conversation at the water cooler the next morning

[jbrace]

I mean the 2004 PGA had a 3-man, 3 hole play-off - Does it get much more exciting than that???

......only if Tiger is involved.

EXACTLY! It would have been more exciting if Tiger was involved in a playoff.

Would it have been more exciting if was Tiger dissmantling the rest of the field and the course itself? Personally, I think not. I remember that playoff. I had played in the "Lefty-Righty" scramble in Smith Falls that day and stayed in the clubhouse afterwards (instead of driving back to K-town) because it was great TV. Never would have done it this year, but that's just me I guess. Oh and the majority of my golf fan friends who also flipped the tube to another channel when Tiger had it in the bag. But I guess they are not "representative of the real golf world" (whatever that is) either.

jeffc stated that it was boring to watch Tiger dominate (yet again). Andru's assertion is that Tiger dominating every tournament is better for golf ratings than if he were simply "in contention". This is where we disagree.

[Andru]

EXACTLY! It would have been more exciting if Tiger was involved in a playoff.
...... Oh and the majority of my golf fan friends who also flipped the tube to another channel when Tiger had it in the bag. But I guess they are not "representative of the real golf world" (whatever that is) either.

That's as plain as day. WHile you and your friends turned the tube off. The majority of golf fans and more left it on. It's as simple as that. My golf friends left it on. Even my dad and mom watched.

jeffc stated that it was boring to watch Tiger dominate (yet again). Andru's assertion is that Tiger dominating every tournament is better for golf ratings than if he were simply "in contention". This is where we disagree.

The numbers say when Tiger is in contention the ratings are better that is true. However. the best ratings so far are when Tiger has dominated the field. 1997 masters being on of them, The 2000 US open being another.

People like to witness greatness It's not because are expectations are lower or we're easily satisfied. Golf is different than other sports. Your competition is your opponent in many sports. In golf the competition can be the course. When Tiger is doing something that no one else is. It's theater. he's going one on one with the golf course and when he's beating it. Unforgetable. The CBS guys are not idiots. When they say Tiger is making a difficult course look easy they weren't lying.

Sure Tiger playing his best with some pressure to the end is awesome as well.

[jbrace]

People like to witness greatness It's not because are expectations are lower or we're easily satisfied. Golf is different than other sports. Your competition is your opponent in many sports. In golf the competition can be the course. When Tiger is doing something that no one else is. It's theater. he's going one on one with the golf course and when he's beating it. Unforgetable. The CBS guys are not idiots. When they say Tiger is making a difficult course look easy they weren't lying.

You're not really saying anything here that we don't already know.

Let's put a different spin on it:

Hypothetical Scenario 1 - Tiger wins every tournament that he enters in the next three years by 6 shots. Every other player crumbles in his wake to the pressure of trying to keep up.

Hypothetical Scenario 2 - Tiger is either tied for the lead or within a couple of stokes going into the final round of every tournament that he enters in the next three years. His FC's step up to the pressure and force him to play his best, and some actually succeed in besting him down the stretch.

Andru, which scenario do you think would be best for golf ratings over the three year period?

[Hacker]

Hypothetical Scenario 1 - Tiger wins every tournament that he enters in the next three years by 6 shots. Every other player crumbles in his wake to the pressure of trying to keep up.

Hypothetical Scenario 2 - Tiger is either tied for the lead or within a couple of stokes going into the final round of every tournament that he enters in the next three years. His FC's step up to the pressure and force him to play his best, and some actually succeed in besting him down the stretch.

Scenario 1 without a doubt - remember when that dude went on the incredible run on Jeopardy......that was their highest viewership because people were witnessing history, routing for the guy to win, routing for the guy to lose etc......this would be the same with Tiger if we was winning everything in sight

[mberube]

You're not really saying anything here that we don't already know.

Let's put a different spin on it:

Hypothetical Scenario 1 - Tiger wins every tournament that he enters in the next three years by 6 shots. Every other player crumbles in his wake to the pressure of trying to keep up.

Hypothetical Scenario 2 - Tiger is either tied for the lead or within a couple of stokes going into the final round of every tournament that he enters in the next three years. His FC's step up to the pressure and force him to play his best, and some actually succeed in besting him down the stretch.

Andru, which scenario do you think would be best for golf ratings over the three year period?

I’d rather see scenario 1. The ratings are like this because fans want to see something out of the ordinary. If Tiger is in contention every tourney and wins every other day but also loses tournament that he should have won, that’s not greatness and fans will not tune in to watch. That’s just being a good Tour Pro. Not a record breaking Tour Pro.

Was it fun to see the Oilers win fore straight cups? Was it fun to see Gretz break all those records? Was it fun to see the Habs win 24 cups?

Watching sports, and playing sports is all about dominance. The more you dominate your opponents, the more fans you get.

Mike

[Shivas Irons]

WHile you and your friends turned the tube off. The majority of golf fans and more left it on. .

Not me, it was even more boring than reading the rules of golf.

People like to witness greatness It's not because are expectations are lower or we're easily satisfied. .

It's a matter of people wanting to be part of popular culture and wanting to be part of the conversation at the water cooler the next morning. The fact that there are more viewers when Tiger is playing proves these people are more interested in Tiger than the golf tournament itself. Such as the sportscasters on the radio saying "Tiger won another Grand Slam!!" Uh, I think you mean "major"