U.s. Open minus woods

[Ruskie]

Unfortunately, I agree with you Rich. I just hope the fact that Rory doesn't have a PGA Tour card and plays lots of golf in Europe will dampen that media circus.

[fourlights]

I am not prepared for a minute to attribute to him a singular influence on the growth of the game. The numbers just don't bear that out.

Statistical evidence is needed to ratify this position.

[mpare]

An article ( http://cgmaterials.com/pdf/GolfPartic.pdf ) available on the Internet by the National Golf Foundation sets out the following percentage growth in golfers by the decades as follows:

Figure 2: Supply and Demand Growth by Decade

1960s 9.1%

1970s 3.5%

1980s 3.7%

1990s 1.6%

2000s -0.7%

You will note that there was a marginal increase in the 1990s and a decrease in the 2000s. This is in stark contrast to the notable increase in the 1960s and the continued growth in the 1970s and 80s.

Statistical evidence is needed to ratify this position.

[SGH]

Correlation does not imply causation in this case. There are WAY too many other variables at work here to imply those stats support or refute Woods' impact on the game of golf. I don't have any recommendations as to what you can use to support either argument; however, throwing out 5 difference % changes by no means adds anything to the discussion. There are too many economic and social variables at work here to suggest that any single PGA player had more impact than another.

[nokids]

TW (1997-2009) didn't make me want to play golf, but I sure did watch a lot more golf because of him.

[mpare]

You're right that stats alone are just one factor to be considered. However, they do tell us one thing. That there was not a significant increase in the number of golfers taking up the game during the Tiger era. That may be the result of economic and other factors, but in any case Tiger could not single-handedly move those numbers. As for the influence of Arnie and Ike, at the time those close to the game felt that their contribution to growing the game was significant. Admittedly, though, that belief was not scientifically established.

Correlation does not imply causation in this case. There are WAY too many other variables at work here to imply those stats support or refute Woods' impact on the game of golf. I don't have any recommendations as to what you can use to support either argument; however, throwing out 5 difference % changes by no means adds anything to the discussion. There are too many economic and social variables at work here to suggest that any single PGA player had more impact than another.