Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazuela
See, they even look to Tiger to attract "teen males." Tiger is old enough to be a teen male's father, not a peer. If they want to attract teen males, they need to look closer to teen males' ages. Like Xander Schauffele, who is only 25 years old. Why doesn't his contribution and excellent show at the Masters Tournament not count? Why does the future of golf rest largely on a middle-aged man, when there are many younger men already carrying the game?
I think the media does the sport a HUGE disservice by focusing on a single player to rest the entire future of the sport on. No matter how good Tiger is, he is not the beginning nor the end of golf. They need to branch out and share the spotlight with some of the other fine players, in particular the younger ones, if they intend to use the media to attract new blood to the game.
|
The loss of new players isn't new....and has been occurring during the years that Tiger wasn't at the top of the page, when the younger players (who entered the game watching Tiger, have a huge amount of respect for him and owe all the big purses they play for these days too him) were winning the majors. The players you think are important to the game....well, really haven't and aren't going to attract younger players. Attendance and TV ratings go up when Tiger plays (even when he was hurt), just as they did when Palmer and Nicklaus played. We want to watch the best in one of the few individual sports games (tennis and bowling included) and we choose who we believe that is. Based on attendance and TV ratings, there are many like us who choose Tiger and the media knows that and gives the majority what they are looking for. That doesn't mean we don't appreciate Xander Schauffele, DeChambeau, Koepka and many others, but they don't come close to bringing out emotion in spectators that Tiger does. Even today, when Nicklaus hits a lousy ceremonial tee shot, he brings out emotion and a desire for golfers (even your guys) to see him and watch.