Does golf need a dominant player?

[muttleee]

This article on Yahoo points out that the media centre was less than half full when the world no. 1 gave a press conference at the USPGA. Does golf need a player who excites the public (and the media) rather than the current crop of mostly 'unexceptional' players? That's not to say that those players aren't good of course - but apart from maybe Rory, they haven't really caught the public imagination. Love Tiger or hate him, golf has never had a boom period like that when he was at the top of his game.

Perhaps another period with one (or more) really dominant players would be just the shot in the arm that golf needs to bring more players (and therefore money) into the game.

 

[ScienceBoy]

It does need a media "baby" (prev tiger now rory?) but its all about competition so having 5-10 players who are absolutly capable of winning week in week out would be ideal.

 

[StrangelyBrown]

If the current world no.1 was American I'd bet my house that the media centre would be full.

 

[Aztecs27]

If the current world no.1 was American I'd bet my house that the media centre would be full.

Sad but true.

 

[sweatysock41]

Love Tiger or hate him, golf has never had a boom period like that when he was at the top of his game.

Perhaps another period with one (or more) really dominant players would be just the shot in the arm that golf needs to bring more players (and therefore money) into the game.

Golf has had players before Tiger that have inspired the public imagination - remember Arnie's Army that really put Golf into the public eye like never before.

I think this is just like many things - cyclical. There usually is a player who dominates for a period of time, then a period of time where no-one dominates and then someone comes out of the pack to dominate again.

Does golf need it? It will benefit from the publicity/income but as a game not sure if it is something that is really needed, what I personnally think would be better would be a great rivalry between 2 or 3 players e.g. Palmer/Nicklaus/Player as opposed to one dominant force.

 

[GB72]

Not sure that golf needs a dominant player, many sports are at their best when there are a few people competing for the win. It does need a few people to stand head and shoulders above the rest who are competing week in, week out. The general public are never going to get gripped if you see a different name every week winning, especially if that name slips back into obscurity. What it also needs is some personlity, something the general public can associate with or aspire to. The top golfers all seem like nice enough chaps but they are not exactly going to grab the attention of the non-golfing public.

 

[Mungoscorner]

I've not missed Tiger at all.In fact the TV coverage,and newspapers have been all the better for it.
Golf needs Characters,and personalities,i'm not sure it needs a dominant player.

 

[RGDave]

Golf needs Characters,and personalities,i'm not sure it needs a dominant player.

I agree. I hardly bothered to watch golf when Tiger was prowling and eating up the field.

 

[richy]

In the next few years I hope mcilroy, fowler and manaserro are the 3 best players and are battling it out for majors. I think that wOuld be exciting.

I also don't think Rory will take over from tiger. He's good, no question but he's missing something I just can't quite put my finger on. I hope I'm wrong of course

 

[19thagain]

Seve V Tiger in the personality stakes??

No contest in my opinion ..Tiger is not fit to lace Seve's golf shoes.

We also enjoyed many top golfers who would pack the press in and then came ...boring FALDO and he undid a lot of the good!