Best Player never to win a Major debate

[Papas1982]

Sponsorship for players continues to be a big factor for US and European players.
Appearance fees have never been allowed in PGA Tour events.
Facilities - I'm sure none of us have ever experienced facilities for players on either tour, so why bring it up.
TV deals - go to the tour which they will try and use to boost prize money, as well as run their own operations.
Same with course management and condition. No one is avoiding any European tour events because of dodgy greens or bare fairways.
Fan facilities - again, not really sure how this is going to impact player decisions.

then more words that don't prove anything.

The Tiger factor is massively overstated. Professional Sports was going this way in general with the advent of designated sports channels, pay per view and athletes realising they could earn a lot by marketing themselves as a brand.

Since 1997 the Wimbledon prize fund has increased from £6.88 million to £38 million. 5.5x increase during the 'Tiger era'.
The Players Prize money has increased 4.28x in the same period.
The BMW PGA Prize money has increased 4.11x since 1997.

I'm very sure similar comparisons exist for other sports such as football, Cricket, Rugby, NFL etc.

How much has tennis prize money (not just majors) increased. I'd bet that everyday PGA events earn more than just a standard men's tennis comp.

I'd hazard a guess football has a much larger increase, both American and Soccer ?

The Tiger effect for me is more about participation that prize money, but that's a different subject.

 

[Jacko_G]

Sponsorship for players continues to be a big factor for US and European players.
Appearance fees have never been allowed in PGA Tour events.
Facilities - I'm sure none of us have ever experienced facilities for players on either tour, so why bring it up.
TV deals - go to the tour which they will try and use to boost prize money, as well as run their own operations.
Same with course management and condition. No one is avoiding any European tour events because of dodgy greens or bare fairways.
Fan facilities - again, not really sure how this is going to impact player decisions.

then more words that don't prove anything.

The Tiger factor is massively overstated. Professional Sports was going this way in general with the advent of designated sports channels, pay per view and athletes realising they could earn a lot by marketing themselves as a brand.

Since 1997 the Wimbledon prize fund has increased from £6.88 million to £38 million. 5.5x increase during the 'Tiger era'.
The Players Prize money has increased 4.28x in the same period.
The BMW PGA Prize money has increased 4.11x since 1997.

I'm very sure similar comparisons exist for other sports such as football, Cricket, Rugby, NFL etc.

Stay off the drugs.

More paragraphs filled with twaddle.

Let's see how many paragraphs I can make out of this post!

Sure I can add a few more it looks good.

I'm bored typing.

Cheerio.

 

[Grant85]

The Tiger effect for me is more about participation that prize money, but that's a different subject.

Again, I'm not sure that's right. Golf participation has certainly not increased since the late 90s. Maybe he's slowed the decline, but obviously tough to demonstrate, but the 'grow the game' motto is a misnomer.

There was also a 'perceived wisdom' in the early part of Tiger's career that we'd see more African American's on tour and more kids from working class backgrounds. Remember the 'I am Tiger Woods' advert. Again, difficult to say that is true at all. I can only think of 2 African American's other than Tiger ( Finau and Varner III) on the PGA Tour, which is probably not much different from the 90s.

 

[Jacko_G]

https://www.stgeorgesgolf.com/Blog/May_2018/tiger-woods-effect.aspx

 

[Papas1982]

Again, I'm not sure that's right. Golf participation has certainly not increased since the late 90s. Maybe he's slowed the decline, but obviously tough to demonstrate, but the 'grow the game' motto is a misnomer.

There was also a 'perceived wisdom' in the early part of Tiger's career that we'd see more African American's on tour and more kids from working class backgrounds. Remember the 'I am Tiger Woods' advert. Again, difficult to say that is true at all. I can only think of 2 African American's other than Tiger ( Finau and Varner III) on the PGA Tour, which is probably not much different from the 90s.

Forget the tour. Much like tennis. It's not generally a sport for the working class. It can cost a lot for players to get a chance to make it.

But look at golf clubs in general. The demographic there has definitely changed. Nobody in my family a generation older took up golf until their 50's as they didn't fit it.

Thise new fans and amateurs then increase revenue..

Pretty much everyone on tour acknowledges it. Or do you think they suck up to tiger becuase he's such a nice guy?

 

[Val]

There is absolutely no doubt that Tiger is the reason journeymen pros are very wealthy now.

 

[TheDiablo]

https://nolayingup.com/2014/08/29/tiger-tax-part-1-assessment/

 

[Grant85]

Forget the tour. Much like tennis. It's not generally a sport for the working class. It can cost a lot for players to get a chance to make it.

But look at golf clubs in general. The demographic there has definitely changed. Nobody in my family a generation older took up golf until their 50's as they didn't fit it.

Thise new fans and amateurs then increase revenue..

Pretty much everyone on tour acknowledges it. Or do you think they suck up to tiger becuase he's such a nice guy?

perception is more important than reality.

When Tiger came, he beat everyone up badly. Winning tournaments by 8 or 10 shots routinely. I'm sure as professionals it was embarrassing to be that far behind, plus he wasn't exactly a friendly guy at that stage in his career. Phil had a frosty relationship with him and they talked up this 'he made us all richer' as a back handed compliment.

My point is that golf and professional sports was heading that way anyway. Tiger was just the torch bearer. If Tiger hadn't been there, we might have had Phil v Vijay going for top dog on 5 or 6 majors each by the mid 2000s. Maybe Garcia wins the 99 PGA and writes a different and captivating story.

Prize money in golf continued to grow, even when Tiger wasn't involved and looked like he might never get back to any kind of competitive golf.

 

[Papas1982]

perception is more important than reality.

When Tiger came, he beat everyone up badly. Winning tournaments by 8 or 10 shots routinely. I'm sure as professionals it was embarrassing to be that far behind, plus he wasn't exactly a friendly guy at that stage in his career. Phil had a frosty relationship with him and they talked up this 'he made us all richer' as a back handed compliment.

My point is that golf and professional sports was heading that way anyway. Tiger was just the torch bearer. If Tiger hadn't been there, we might have had Phil v Vijay going for top dog on 5 or 6 majors each by the mid 2000s. Maybe Garcia wins the 99 PGA and writes a different and captivating story.

Prize money in golf continued to grow, even when Tiger wasn't involved and looked like he might never get back to any kind of competitive golf.

You’re putting your opinion of what may have happened over what did.
Yes, there could have been alternatives if it weren’t him, but quite bluntly, It was him. The reason it wasn’t Phil or Sergio as you alluded to was because of how dominate he was. Either of them have dominated like he did if he weren’t around? I don’t think so.

As to prize money rising when Woods was injured. Not sure I see any relevance tbh as the discussion was how Woods was responsible for the spike In interest. He gave the sport the momentum. The new stars continue it somewhat. That being said, look at attendance figures at smaller events when he returned.

 

[Grant85]

https://nolayingup.com/2014/08/29/tiger-tax-part-1-assessment/

Interesting, but what it doesn't do is compare to other sports and the growth in prizes and earnings over similar time periods.

Sport in general was moving out of this semi-professional, weekend Rugby player type era into a professional industry that players, coaches, physios, broadcasters etc would build a career around and make a life changing amount of money in a 10 to 15 year career.

And as I said earlier, how do you account for similar growth in purses on other tours that Tiger was going to be nowhere near?

If the Tiger factor was so big, why were sponsors lining up to pay extra into tournaments Tiger wasn't going to be at?

There is absolutely no doubt that Tiger is the reason journeymen pros are very wealthy now.

Do you not think that's the same for journeymen footballers, basketball players, motor racing drivers etc.
Have you seen Robbie Savage's house? He was hardly the Phil Mickelson of English football.

Back in the day, good, world class, footballers would have to get a career after football. Now they earn enough in a season to sustain a comfortable lifestyle.

 

[Solidthreeputt]

I’m just collating different points made by others here, because I think elements of opposing arguments are correct. Sport was indeed growing, with the influence of live television in it’s growth and concurrent economic growth.

That said, Tiger rapidly multiplied that growth by making a sport which was elitist and exclusionary immeasurably more accessible (it still has some way to go) to the wider masses. He made it cooler and more marketable, with the Nike deal being a prime example.

All in all, for me, golf (like all sports) was growing, Tiger was the accelerant who made the whole thing much, much bigger as a product.

 

[Orikoru]

Amazing that on a thread about best players never to win a major we can end up with two pages waffling on about Tiger. I thought he had won a couple?

 

[Crow]

Let me throw another one out there while we're off topic.

UK/European golf saw a huge boom in the Seve years, with the baton taken up by Langer/Lyle/Faldo/Woosnam etc.

At that time there was a big programme of new course building and the man in the street really took to the game, across a wide age range too. Unfortunately then, as now, ladies golf was generally overlooked.
TV promoted the game and not just competition golf but things like A Round with Alliss and John Jacobs instructional series.

Golf had never seen such popularity and getting a tee time if you weren't a club member meant queuing up at the crack of dawn at your local municipal.

Since those heady days golf has reverted back to an easy target for the media which just picks up on the old stereotypes and hence it's not seen as an attractive option for people looking to try a new sport, they'd much sooner try cycling which is rarely if ever portrayed in a bad light.

We need another Seve! (And some fair media coverage)

 

[Val]

Interesting, but what it doesn't do is compare to other sports and the growth in prizes and earnings over similar time periods.

Sport in general was moving out of this semi-professional, weekend Rugby player type era into a professional industry that players, coaches, physios, broadcasters etc would build a career around and make a life changing amount of money in a 10 to 15 year career.

And as I said earlier, how do you account for similar growth in purses on other tours that Tiger was going to be nowhere near?

If the Tiger factor was so big, why were sponsors lining up to pay extra into tournaments Tiger wasn't going to be at?



Do you not think that's the same for journeymen footballers, basketball players, motor racing drivers etc.
Have you seen Robbie Savage's house? He was hardly the Phil Mickelson of English football.

Back in the day, good, world class, footballers would have to get a career after football. Now they earn enough in a season to sustain a comfortable lifestyle.

What is quoting footballers lifestyles got to do with it when comparing the Tiger Woods affect on golf players finances? It's like comparing apples and turnips. Absolutely non comparable.

 

[Grant85]

What is quoting footballers lifestyles got to do with it when comparing the Tiger Woods affect on golf players finances? It's like comparing apples and turnips. Absolutely non comparable.

How is it non-comparable?

You made the point journeymen golfers were pretty well off now... implying that they had Tiger to thank for that.

But this is true in loads of other sports... Robbie Savage being an example of a journeyman pro in football being a multi-millionaire with a 15 year career window.
Meanwhile you will have guys who were successful footballers through the 80s and into the 90s driving taxis and delivering parcels.

Ultimately sports were getting to a stage where the finances were growing much faster than inflation. Whether there was a Tiger Woods or not in that sport, most professional sports have seen similar growth in earnings from the 90s to present day.

 

[USER1999]

But the likes of Robbie Savage, and countless other vaguely talented nobodies have also had their pay packets boosted by the superstars in their sport. The reason there is so much money in footy is more to do with marketing the Beckhams, Henry's, Messis, Ronaldos, than it is the talents of Savage etc. Who the heck wants to turn on their telly and watch that prat play footy?

 

[Papas1982]

How is it non-comparable?

You made the point journeymen golfers were pretty well off now... implying that they had Tiger to thank for that.

But this is true in loads of other sports... Robbie Savage being an example of a journeyman pro in football being a multi-millionaire with a 15 year career window.
Meanwhile you will have guys who were successful footballers through the 80s and into the 90s driving taxis and delivering parcels.

Ultimately sports were getting to a stage where the finances were growing much faster than inflation. Whether there was a Tiger Woods or not in that sport, most professional sports have seen similar growth in earnings from the 90s to present day.

You suggested tennis and golf were compariable re growth, but that's majors only. Journeymen tennis players don't have the lifestyle of golfers.

Robbie savage made it to the Premier league. That's top tier. Where the wages have increased far more that x5. He may not be elite, but there are more footballers. He's still in the top percentage in England.

Golf is a niche sport and its growth is no way as obvious as that for the top sports of a country. I'm sure it falls below, football, American footy, rugby, cricket and tennis worldwide for participation and viewing figures. Yet it earns more than most of them.

 

[Papas1982]

But the likes of Robbie Savage, and countless other vaguely talented nobodies have also had their pay packets boosted by the superstars in their sport. The reason there is so much money in footy is more to do with marketing the Beckhams, Henry's, Messis, Ronaldos, than it is the talents of Savage etc. Who the heck wants to turn on their telly and watch that prat play footy?

Whilst I agree with the sentiment. Team sports are a lot less dependant on a particular participant for their growth.

People support clubs, not players.

 

[Grant85]

You suggested tennis and golf were compariable re growth, but that's majors only. Journeymen tennis players don't have the lifestyle of golfers.

Robbie savage made it to the Premier league. That's top tier. Where the wages have increased far more that x5. He may not be elite, but there are more footballers. He's still in the top percentage in England.

Golf is a niche sport and its growth is no way as obvious as that for the top sports of a country. I'm sure it falls below, football, American footy, rugby, cricket and tennis worldwide for participation and viewing figures. Yet it earns more than most of them.

Tennis is a shorter career than golf so a journeyman tennis player is not going to last 10 or 15 years, making 20 paydays a year. But there are probably a few on the doubles circuit that have similar type careers as a journeyman golfer, in terms of grinding out 6 figures most years, playing 35 events etc.

Golf also lends itself to larger fields. That's golf's decision to allow a place for the 125th ranked player on tour to stay on tour and have earning potential despite probably not bringing commercial value to a tournament he enters.

I wouldn't say that golf is a niche sport. It has always had global appeal and most people interested in any kind of sport will recognise golf and have a basic understanding of it. Curling is a niche sport.

 

[Grant85]

But the likes of Robbie Savage, and countless other vaguely talented nobodies have also had their pay packets boosted by the superstars in their sport. The reason there is so much money in footy is more to do with marketing the Beckhams, Henry's, Messis, Ronaldos, than it is the talents of Savage etc. Who the heck wants to turn on their telly and watch that prat play footy?

And my point being that every generation will have it's stars or rivalries that will carry the torch and move it on. Does Robbie Savage sit in his massive home and say... thank the football gods for Ryan Giggs and David Beckahm or I'd be out delivering pizzas?

No - it was just the way sport was heading with worldwide audiences and TV deals bringing eyeballs and sponsorship.

Even at times when sports don't have super stars... look at tennis post -Sampras / Agassi and before Fed / Nadal / Novak.... there was this Croatian guy called Goran Ivanisevic who won Wimbledon and everyone absolutely loved it. He was a big personality and it didn't matter he wasn't the best.

He was an interesting guy and he had appeal. Same would have been true if Garcia had won the 99 PGA or David Duval had become a 3 or 4 time major champion in the early 2000s.