I posted my criteria and provided the raw data. Pick other numbers and do the same and I will consider your argument.
Speaking of a cherry pick, how can you possibly use any data set that starts in 1986 as evidence of Arnold Palmer’s influence on the popularity of the game? Arnie’s last Tour win was in 1973. You gonna rerun the Tiger numbers in 2029?
Look, I love Arnie (and Jack - got a soft spot for Jack since I watched his '86 win, plus my dad adored him), but those guys were important to golfers. Tiger was important to people who didn’t know what a birdie was until Tiger came along.
Because, as usual, you only see what you want to see. I cited Zakalwe’s post, which even you must have noticed. Oh wait, you did see it, and you said it was cherry-picked.
What a crock of shit. He compared the years after Tiger turned pro with several ranges, including the five years after 1962, when you had a perfect storm of reasons for golf’s popularity to zoom:
and the three of them forming the “Big Three”, who even got their own TV show, something Tiger never did :“It was Mark McCormack that gave us that moniker,” Nicklaus said. “I don’t know when that actually came about. Probably late ’62 when the three of us played in the World Series of Golf. Arnold had won the Masters and the British Open that year. I had won the U.S. Open and Gary had won the PGA Championship.”
What stock in your portfolio would you be most happy with
The $10 stock that went up to $15 after 12 months?
Or the $100 stock that went up to $115 after 12 months?
Obviously the stock that increased $15 dollars outperformed the stock that went up $5? Correct?:dubious:
Some other factors went into the alleged “Tiger effect.”
There was little growth in PGA Tour purses from 1990-1996, so a correction in the late 1990’s would have been expected.
Tim Finchem was hired by the PGA Tour in 1994. There was comparable growth in the other mainstream sports (football, baseball, basketball, tennis). IMO, it is a pretty safe assumption that golf would have increased like these sports. Especially under the direction of Commissioner Tim Finchem.
Granted there was explosive growth in the first 10 yrs of the Tiger era, but it slowed down in the late 2000’s, even before the fire-hydrant scandal. Again, a correction from the boom from 1996-2006. As a result there was bigger growth (Yes as a percentage) in golf purses from 1978-1996 than there was from 1996-2014. Mostly because the last 5-7 years have been pretty flat. Further evidence of the cyclical nature of the PGATour business model, there are signs of bounce back as the Majors have all made significant purse increases in the last couple of years. The Memorial tournament recently announced about a 25% increase in their purse from 2015 to 2016.
There is no crystal ball that would tell us the growth of golf purses in a Tiger free world. But IMO, the Tiger Effect is typically over-stated. And it definitely could be a case of “The Whole being greater than the sum of the parts”
What Tiger did do for the other players is increase the potential of off-course income, through sponsorships, appearance fees, corporate outings, etc. “A rising tide elevates all boats”
Wow, I didn’t think that would go over anybody’s head. Live and learn.
You put the scare quotes around the wrong words. They should have been around “alleged.” But it’s always nice to start off by poisoning the well.
No, it isn’t. It’s not like the golfers could threaten to take up football if they didn’t get paid more. Despite what golf fans think, it is not a mainstream sport. Almost every kid grows up playing football, baseball, and basketball (and in colder areas, hockey). Probably less than 10% grow up playing golf. If it was a law of nature that minor sports went up at the same rate as the NBA or NFL, then bowling would be paying a million bucks to the winner of a tournament, instead of scrambling to find a sponsor to offer $50K to the winner of the PBA US Open. And US soccer players would be making ten times their average $300K salary.
“Growth slowed down” means the money is still going up. It’s obviously impossible for money to keep going up as fast as it did when Tiger first turned pro. On the other hand, there’s no reason it can’t stay flat indefinitely. Like I said, the golfers aren’t going to quit the tour and join the NFL.
No, it’s evidence that unlike Zakalwe, who did a horrible job of cherry-picking, you’re a master. 1978 was when runaway inflation and interest rates hit the US. It was double digits in 1979-81 (13.5% in 1980), but was never above 3.8% after 1996, and was actually negative in 2009. The actual increase in the CPI from 1978-1996 was 91.7, a percentage increase of 140%. From 1996-2014, the actual increase was 79.8, a percentage increase of 51%. Nice try.
After 80 years of cyclical growth, PGA Tour purses would have completely stopped in the mid 1990’s. The other contributing factors to the growth would have absolutely no impact on purses.
Lets ignore the fact that purses in tournaments that Tiger never played increased at comparable rates to the tournaments he mostly played. We will credit the Rising Tide Floats All Boats effect for the growth rate for the tournaments in Honolulu, Palm Springs, Memphis and Hartford (and others). These are tournaments that Tiger never played. Ditto long standing tournaments that Tiger rarely played like the Texas Open, Las Vegas, Hilton Head.
And lets ignore the fact that purses went up in the International Tours that Tiger rarely played like the Japan Tour, the Australian Tour, the Sunshine Tour, and the European Tour.
Furthermore, purses have gone up in golf Tours that Tiger never played. Like the Web Tour, and the Challenge Tour, and even the LPGA Tour.
Yes, lets attribute all that growth to Rising Tide Floats All Boats effect.
The current PGA Tour contract was negotiated and signed in 2011. IIRC, it was a 10 yr extension with Golf Channel/NBC/CBS. Do you Remember what was happening in 2011? Tiger was plummeting in the rankings. There was no guarantee that he would return to any kind of previous form. Yet the networks sign a 10 year extension.
Two months ago, Memorial announced a purse increase from 6.2 Million to 8.5 million, a 37% increase. Tiger is on the sidelines with 2 back surgeries in the last 6 months. There is no guarantee that he will be back and yet Finchem/PGA Tour is still able to negotiate these deals.
Despite evidence to the contrary it is Rising Tide Floats All Boats effect. :dubious:
Why would you want to ignore that? Surely you know that the smaller events are televised? Surely you understand that when the PGA negotiates a big TV contract, all the events benefit? Or do you think that the Tennessee Titans have salary minimums and caps that are five times lower than the New York Jets, just because they’re in a much smaller market?
Tiger plummeted in the rankings because he was out with surgery for much of the 2011 season, missing two majors (and making fools of your pals who said he was faking his injury at the Players). But he had come back strong from surgery in 2008 to be Player of the Year in 2009, and he was just 35, so it wasn’t such a long shot that he would be playing well for another ten years. And in fact, he did come back strong, and was again POTY in 2013. And as I write this while watching TV, Phil Mickelson just missed a putt for a playoff at Pebble Beach, and he’ll be 46 in June. Hopefully, Tiger will be back again, but if he isn’t, we still have Spieth and Rory (and Phil).
What kind of straw man are you trying to set up? Has anyone argued that nobody will watch golf without Tiger playing? Has anyone argued that golf is completely disconnected from the larger economy, and that recessions or recoveries have zero effect on it?
And guess what, the biggest beneficiary of Tiger’s woes has been Jack Nicklaus. Every time one of the thousands of articles about Tiger said his chances of breaking the major record were fading fast, they mentioned it was Jack’s record. The Memorial (in case anyone doesn’t know, it’s hosted by Jack) has been one of the strongest regular PGA events for a long time, and starting last year, the Tour is giving its (and Arnie’s event) winners a 3-year exemption, something done previously only for WGCs, so it’s now official that it’s an extraordinary event with an extraordinary purse.
Good for Jack, he’s earned it, and I expect Arnie will announce something similar for Bay Hill very shortly. But it’s more of your cherry-picking to act like 40% increases are common for PGA events these days.
But if Spieth keeps winning multiple majors per year, or even better, if he duels with Rory at almost every major, and the ratings and purses zoom, I’ll be happy to give them full credit for the new surge, and I guarantee that I won’t be here 20 years from now, grumbling that since purses are still increasing in 2036, that Spieth and Rory were inconsequential in the surge of 2016.
The Memorial Purse is directly on point. You claim that Tiger is the predominant (only?) reason why PGATour purses went up after 1996.
I gave you a present day example of a purse with a (likely) record setting one year increase and it is with Tiger on the sidelines with no guarantee that he will be competitive again (or even able to play golf).
IMO: Most pundits, media, and fans give to much credit to the “Tiger Effect”. I am not denying it is part of the formula, I just don’t think it is as big of a factor as people think it is.
BTW…I did notice that you did not address the other parts of the argument, about purse increases for the LPGA, and the international tours.
It’s not my job to correct every mistaken impression on this board, especially after your amazement that Finchem included tournaments Tiger doesn’t play in the PGA TV contract, but:
Yes, if Tiger increases worldwide interest in golf, then all golf tours will benefit.
That concludes are discussion. The PGATour would be playing for 1.5 Million Dollar purses. Just like they were in 1996. Scratch that. Purses would have gone down. Tim Finchem would have been fired as purses plummet to 800k purses!!
80 years of overall growth would be flushed down the toilet!
Totally off topic, but I’m tossing this in because most of the golf dopers are here - I couldn’t believe the golfer Ms D refers to as SaggyMan Boobs missed that last up-and-down/putt! :eek:
Gotten kind of far from the original question, eh?
I think the bottom line answer to the question is that Tiger is a smart, funny, personable guy with a lot of friends, but that he shows his true self only to people he knows well, and prefers to keep fans at a distance. If he SEEMS to fans and reporters to be an icy charmless individual, he doesn’t mind.
Just on the money issue. There are a number of reasons that the money involved in golf increased so dramatically and Tiger is certainly one of them.
I suspect that another reason though is that many of the golfers who picked up the game in the 60’s and 70’s are now a coveted demographic for advertisers. They tend to be wealthier and have more disposable income which makes them a prime target for well off advertisers with high margin products. This demographic have come into their own right around the Tiger-boom. So more ad revenue means bigger purses.
Add in the growth in the number of international players plus a once in a lifetime dominant player (also happens to help that he is very telegenic) like Tiger and you have a boom in revenues.