Tournament Golf is great without Tiger Woods
It’s the game, Spence, not the players. Yes, Tiger Woods is the best golfer alive, at present, and likely the best we’ll ever see play the game. But that doesn’t mean tournaments are boring when he’s not around. Far from it. In fact, it could be argued that tournaments are better when he’s not there. Because then, there is a chance that any one in the field might win. I don’t know about anyone else but I thought the U.S. Open last year was the most exciting tournament of the year on the PGA Tour. And ole Tiger Woods missed the cut.
And if you don’t happen to be close-minded, you may have watched the Kraft Nabisco Championship and witnessed what was absolutely the best tournament of 2006. And there was no Tiger Woods. In fact, he wasn’t even invited because it’s limited to female golfers. How about that?
|« Nissan Open will be great golfing theater - and it doesn’t include Tiger Woods||Ernie Els gets his first comeback test from Tiger Woods »|
a tournament without the best player in the world,
just doesn't seem like competition. Do you watch
any other sporting event and hope that the best player
is not playing that day? If so, you are indeed unique.
My first exposure to pro golf was in 1979, I think. I went out to Monday qualifying for the old Kemper tournament at Congressional - back then only the top 60 were exempt. What I came away from that with was that even the guys that sucked - relatively speaking - were great golfers.
All I need to see is a good competition. Is it better when the best are there. Sure. But I think it's still great when they are not.
Tiger in the field. It would definately increase attendence
by 20 percent, not to mention TV ratings.
Our tournament is not boring, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone to say we wouldn't love to have
Tiger in the field.
If you think I was paraphrasing your comment, I'll
save a seat for you in english class.
This post has 2 feedbacks awaiting moderation...