These are not inherently contrary, and indeed each reinforces the other.
Tiger contributed more to the popularity of golf than any other golfer in history. In return, he’s made more money than any other golfer in history (well north of a billion dollars).
I think there’s a key distinction, however. There are plenty of people who worked as hard and devoted as much of their lives to an endeavor as Tiger did to Golf without having made nearly as much money as he did, because whatever field they excel in doesn’t happen to be as remunerative as Golf. For isntance, this guy.
If that’s the metric, then Tiger is #1 by a mile. Even if half the people watching hated Tiger, they still watched.
Except that golf is in decline across most of the country.
Arnold Palmer is the champion in terms of inspiring people to take up the game, and it ain’t really close.
Your own cite says, “Tiger Woods drew an unprecedented number of newcomers to the sport,” so you need a better cite.
ETA: Arnie won the first PGA event I ever attended, and I’ve been a huge fan for over 50 years, but TV coverage (and the fact that most Americans had TVs) was what was mostly responsible for the upsurge in golf’s popularity in the 60’s. The upsurge in the late 90’s was all Tiger.
Let’s run some stats, shall we?
Arnie started his pro career in 1955. The money leader that year made $63,122. Over the next 5 years, the average money leader made $59,514. Arnie’s first major win was in 1958. The money leader that year made $42,608. Over the next 5 years, the average money leader made $63,405 - an increase of 49%.
Jack started his pro career in 1962. The money leader that year (Arnie) made $81,448. Jack also won his first major that year (US Open over Arnie). Over the next 5 years, the average money leader made $117,132 - an increase of 44%.
Tiger started his pro career in 1996. The money leader that year (Phil) made $1,780,159. Over the next 5 years, the average money leader made $4,448,586 for an increase of 150%. Tiger’s first major win was in 1997. The money leader that year (Tiger) made $2,066,833. Over the next 5 years, the average money leader made $5,230,109 - an increase of 153%.
Taking the 5 years prior to Tiger’s debut, the increase for the top money leader was 15%.
Don’t tell me Tiger owes golf shit. Golf owes Tiger HUGE.
Here are the stats I used for the above calcs:
Year Money winner Earnings ($)
1955 United States Julius Boros (2/2) 63,122
1956 United States Ted Kroll 72,836
1957 United States Dick Mayer 65,835
1958 United States Arnold Palmer (1/4) 42,608
1959 United States Art Wall, Jr. 53,168
1960 United States Arnold Palmer (2/4) 75,263
1961 South Africa Gary Player 64,540
1962 United States Arnold Palmer (3/4) 81,448
1963 United States Arnold Palmer (4/4) 128,230
1964 United States Jack Nicklaus (1/8) 113,285
1965 United States Jack Nicklaus (2/8) 140,752
1966 United States Billy Casper (1/2) 121,945
1967 United States Jack Nicklaus (3/8) 188,998
1968 United States Billy Casper (2/2) 205,169
1969 United States Frank Beard 164,707
1970 United States Lee Trevino 157,037
1971 United States Jack Nicklaus (4/8) 244,491
1972 United States Jack Nicklaus (5/8) 320,542
1973 United States Jack Nicklaus (6/8) 308,362
1974 United States Johnny Miller 353,022
1975 United States Jack Nicklaus (7/8) 298,149
1976 United States Jack Nicklaus (8/8) 266,439
1977 United States Tom Watson (1/5) 310,653
1978 United States Tom Watson (2/5) 362,429
1979 United States Tom Watson (3/5) 462,636
1980 United States Tom Watson (4/5) 530,808
1981 United States Tom Kite (1/2) 375,699
1982 United States Craig Stadler 446,462
1983 United States Hal Sutton 426,668
1984 United States Tom Watson (5/5) 476,260
1985 United States Curtis Strange (1/3) 542,321
1986 Australia Greg Norman (1/3) 653,296
1987 United States Curtis Strange (2/3) 925,941
1988 United States Curtis Strange (3/3) 1,147,644
1989 United States Tom Kite (2/2) 1,395,278
1990 Australia Greg Norman (2/3) 1,165,477
1991 United States Corey Pavin 979,430
1992 United States Fred Couples 1,344,188
1993 Zimbabwe Nick Price (1/2) 1,478,557
1994 Zimbabwe Nick Price (2/2) 1,499,927
1995 Australia Greg Norman (3/3) 1,654,959
1996 United States Tom Lehman 1,780,159
1997 United States Tiger Woods (1/10) 2,066,833
1998 United States David Duval 2,591,031
1999 United States Tiger Woods (2/10) 6,616,585
2000 United States Tiger Woods (3/10) 9,188,321
2001 United States Tiger Woods (4/10) 5,687,777
2002 United States Tiger Woods (5/10) 6,912,625
2003 Fiji Vijay Singh (1/3) 7,573,907
Sure, it’s a bigger increase percentagewise, but if you look at the actual dollar increase, you… um, never mind.
Another interesting fact is when Tiger turned pro (late 1996), the PGA career earnings leader was Greg Norman, who in his 20 years as a pro and over ten years at or near #1 in the world, had earned about $10.5 million. Thanks to the Tiger-induced inflation of purses, Vijay Singh won $10.9 million just in 2004.
First, remember that WE don’t know Tiger Woods, or ANY of the golfers on the PGA tour, or ANY of the celebrities we read about or see on TV. All we know is what we find out through the media and through gossip.
Fans generally like Phil Mickelson and think he’s a charming, great guy. The sports rumor mill says his colleagues generally dislike him and think he’s a egotistical phony. What’s true? I dunno.
Fans generally dislike Vijay Singh and think he’s a distant, icy, standoffish guy. The sports rumor mill says his colleagues generally love him and think he’s a warm, gregarious, smart, funny guy. What’s true? I dunno.
As for Tiger… millions of fans admire him, but few love him, because he’s always kept them at arm’s length. What’s he “really” like? Well, for what it’s worth, the rumor mill says his colleagues MOSTLY like him a lot (except for Jesper Parnevik, who introduced him to ex-wife Elin and now thinks Tiger is a jerk).
The one observation I’ll make about Tiger is, EARLY in his career, right after his first Masters win, Tiger gave a famous (notorious) interview in GQ in which he let his hair down and showed some of his real personality. He told several silly, puerile dirty jokes, and he received a LOT of flak for that.
My hunch (and that’s all it is, a hunch) is that Tiger drew a lesson from that: NEVER let your guard down. When you talk to the press, speak in cliches and generalities. When you meet fans, treat them with cool reserve. Don’t say or do ANYTHING in public that might draw unwanted attention.
Good post astorian and others.
No question Tiger was the best thing ever for golf - at least in terms of viewers and $$$. Also simply for not being white. So I don’t know what other standards are relevant.
You could go back to the 20s and talk about the impact of Hagen and the newly minted pros, and identify charismatic individuals up through Palmer, but I think the case for any of them would be based more on emotion (for the other guy or against Tiger) than evidence.
I was somewhat shocked and dismayed when I first looked at the all-time money winner list a decade or more ago, and saw how the superstars of my youth (70s) were eclipsed by also-ran journeymen. Take a look if you haven’t, and see where any superstar of the 20th century ranks. Greg Norman is at 98 - just ahead of Briny Baird (113). Tom Watson is at 139, Ben Crenshaw 207. Jack is right at 250. That is primarily - if not solely - to Tiger’s credit.
And course earnings only scratches the surface. Remember how shocking Tiger’s initial contract w/ Nike was? Reset the bar for everyone, and looks almost modest in retrospect.
Like everyone says, we really have no way to know for sure what athletes and celebrities are like. For example, I was really surprised somewhat recently to learn that Tom Watson was a hardcore drinker. Even today, we don’t know exactly why DJ took his little vacation.
I always kinda liked Charles Barkley’s attitude: “I’m not a role model”; “I’m rich, I don’t identify with the concerns of disadvantaged folk” (paraphrased).
But athletes/celebrities DO have some control over how they come across in the media. Some may simply not care. Others might work hard at projecting an image different from their nature. From what I saw on TV, Tiger always impressed me as a petulant jerk. To the contrary, Phil generally looks pleasant. Of course, as has been mentioned, Tiger was such a HUGE phenomenon, he faced issues others didn’t. I remember similar things being said about Michael Jordan back in the day - how he couldn’t even go to a movie.
One other factor - I’ve read several things that suggest to me that Earl Woods was a pretty big jerk in many ways. I guess bigamy impresses me as a significant shortfalling. So if we wish to imagine the son learned his lessons from the father, that might be one hint.
Never denied that Tiger played a big part in (the temporary) resurgence of growth in the sport (so you can dispense with the scarecrows, folks)-and that the current decline probably doesn’t have a lot to do with him (and more to do with the current state of the economy). I was taking issue with the statement “Tiger contributed more to the popularity of golf than any other golfer in history.” In the same general sense that, without Babe Ruth, there likely would be no Roger Maris, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, or (fill in name of another modern day slugger). You all just need to give Arnie a little more credit here, 'tis all-and that includes on the TV side of things. Without Arnie the PGA Tour as we currently understand it may not have existed.
Now, prize purses may, or may not, correlate with popularity on an amateur level. In percentage terms, if you don’t cherry pick your start and end dates of course, the gains from Arnie, in the longer term, seem no different from those from Tiger (assuming correlation means causation in both cases, of course). It’s quite possible that all of those “unprecedented” new golfers simply didn’t have much staying power, were dilettantes, in other words, who lost interest when Tiger’s star dimmed.
I do actually know a golfer on the PGA Tour. As mentioned before, Tiger is very popular among his fellow players and is appreciated for what he’s done for their pocketbooks. Conversely, Phil is not well liked by the tour members, but is adored by the fans for his interaction with them.
Was going to post something similar, but yeah, exactly. And not just in sports - every professional in the world puts in thousands and thousands of hours in their field. Most of them do not become millionaires and never will. Golf has been very good to Tiger Woods, acting has been very good to Tom Hanks, YouTube has been very good to Park Jae-sang.
Great link, by the way. I’d never even heard of the guy. Amazing story.
I, for one, am happy to do so. It’s reasonable to think that without Arnie, that billion+ that Tiger has earned might be $10 million or so.
(Also, I’ve met him and found him to be a true gentleman.)
Nobody is saying Arnie was a dud. But you said it wasn’t even close between Arnie and Tiger’s influence on golf, and you can’t back that up. Your own cite contradicted you, and Zakalwe posted IMO irrefutable proof that you’re wrong, so now you’re just waving your hands.
Like I said, I’ve been an Arnie fan for over 50 years. For a long time, he was the biggest name in golf, and by all accounts, he has a wonderful personality. But Tiger was the biggest name in sports, not just golf. He even transcended sports – you would see news articles that had nothing to do with sports, saying something like “Professor X is the Tiger Woods of anthropology.” Wrt popularity and worldwide recognition, there’s really no comparison to him with anyone in golf. And the only comparisons in sports are Ali and Jordan.
Right, they weren’t true Scotsmen. But if they did lose interest when Tiger stopped winning, it’s just more proof that it was Tiger, rather than golf or TV or whatever, that drew the fans. It’s not Tiger’s fault if golf is boring without him.
The lurid personal behavior and cheapskate/bad tipper stuff have been done to death. Now he’s just a guy who’s way past his prime and on the decline.
If only the media would cut out the obsessive adulation and speculation, and quit hammering home the idea that professional golf cannot survive without Tiger Tiger Tiger!!!*
Pro golf is mostly boring except for a few top events, but the absence of a single hugely dominant figure is not as crucial as we’re led to believe.
Somehow pro baseball and football survive without the Yankees and Dallas Cowboys always in contention for the title.
*if I was a sports reporter covering golf (:eek:), just once in one of those stupid post-third round press conferences where they’re tiptoeing around the reality that Tiger is 15 strokes behind the leader, I would like to ask him how he rates his chances for winning the tournament. I’ve never heard the guy admit he’s completely out of it. It’s a disease enabled by the media.
You obviously don’t watch much golf. The Golf Channel has guys like Chamblee and Feinstein who have made a career out of knocking Tiger. The major networks have guys like Jim Nantz who always (well, at least since the scandal broke) managed to compare Tiger unfavorably to Nicklaus or Phil or Rory or Spieth. And every network carrying golf says about ten times an hour how golf is in great hands, and is just as exciting as ever. It’s their job.
That’s how a champion thinks. But you inadvertently stumbled onto another reason Tiger has a rep for being sullen. Almost any other golfer gets a press conference only when he’s at or near the top of the leaderboard, possibly for the first time in years, and is walking on air. Guess what, he’s in a great mood. Tiger gets interviewed even when he’s 15 shots behind, and still gets the same stupid questions he’s heard a thousand times – like how he rates his chances for winning – so how happy do you expect him to be?
I don’t know anyone on the PGA Tour, but I do know a superstar on the LPGA Tour. She freaking adores Tiger. I don’t know how much that is due to her bank account, though.
I remember reading in the Chicago Sun Times, probably late 90’s, that ex baseball great Reggie Jackson was golfing on the same course as Tiger Woods and Reggie wanted to say hello and Tiger refused to meet him. Apparently Tiger was very rude in doing so too.
That may be true. Then again, if Curtis Strange had walked onto the field at Yankee Stadium during batting practice and asked to meet Reggie, well, Reggie might have snapped, “I’m BUSY!!!” And that wouldn’t make Reggie a bad guy.
He brought up a chart of data that likely was more irrelevant than not, and cherry picked from it to calculate his percentages. I see no cites from you, as usual.
The opinion of some sportswriter doesn’t count for much-the point of my cites was to show that participation in the sport has declined over the last decade or so, and that cannot be denied.
Here is all I’m going to say on the subject-PDF warning, but at the top it has a chart of golf rounds per year from '86 to '08. There was a nice Tiger bump there from 2000 (his 2nd major) to '07 or so, but said gains don’t look all that spectacular to me. Also note (2nd graph) that, after a huge course boom in the 90’s, the net gain was small in the 00’s. It’s hard to tease out the various causes there, note.
I was unable to find any data on the 60’s-until someone does, this debate is moot.