Article

[RaviPachai]

I have just finished reading your article on Tiger Woods and I surprised that you could have an editor that knows so little on which he writes about.

First, let me remind you that the P.G.A is a charitable organisation which does not pay any of the players but instead supplies prize money. Michael Jordan was able to demand $70 million from the Chicago Bulls because of the enormous amount of money they earned through television rights, sales, endorsements and such. Tiger Woods cannot demand anything from the P.G.A because they do not PAY the players.

Secondly, I personaly don't believe (as do many others) that Tiger is interested in earning more money. What Tiger wants is the recognition. The P.G.A Tour IS making money hand over fist because of his influence. Through t.v. rights , vendors and golf tournaments, the golf courses they own, and basically through marketing Tiger Woods (whether it be on a commercial or at a golf tournament) the P.G.A tour has seen profits grow at an exponential rate. Tiger was also upset that he only ever heard from the commissioner whenever they needed Tiger to do something (I.E. a commercial or golf tournament) and never any other time.

Thirdly, golf is very competitive and will always be with or without Tiger. You article seems to gravitate towards a point where you are trying to say that Tiger is having more of a negative effect of golf rather then positive. Tiger has made golf what it is today, Tiger is the reason why millions of household (many which don't even play golf) tune in to watch that golf tournament, Tiger is the reason why Nike has seen their golf line sell like hot cakes, Tiger is the reason why the P.G.A tour is able to provide millions of dollars in prize money, and I bet Tiger's popularity is also the reason why you posted this article today, because you know people will read it when they see Tiger's name. You're playing off of Tiger just like the P.G.A tour is, and all he wants is a little recognition for that. Are you going to give it to him?


Ravi

[iFroggy]

First, let me say, I agree with you overall. (For those of you reading this... the article is at http://www.sports-central.org/sports/golf/articles/article57.shtml)

The PGA has sponsors which supply the money for the purses.

I also agree, Tiger wants to win. He is already rich and isn't interested in getting more money. If he was... who'd blame him? He has to protect his rights and interests too.

Interest in the tour has vastly increased since Tiger has hit the scene. But, does he owe the tour anything? No. Does the tour owe him anything? No. This is all just part of being on tour. If there wasn't a golf tour, there would be no high prices tournaments. But, thats not saying Tiger owes the tour anything.

I don't really think Tiger "has made golf what it is today." Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer should be credited with that. Especially Nicklaus.

I don't think he needs someone to come out and say that he has made a lot of money for the tour, we all know it, including him. But, without a tour, there isn't money. Again, saying he doesn't owe anything, but the tour owns the rights to the pictures of the players during tournaments and can market all PGA Tour players in relation to the tour. Tiger does have to protect his sponsors, which is what he should do. But, the tour is one person that can use his picture.

For Tigers sake, the Actors Guild can take a flying leap, they are lucky that he abided by the strike for as long as he did.


Money can turn even the best of us into demons. Tiger Woods doesn't need any more money. The man has even more than A-Rod. Yet, come season end, Tiger was talking ominously of an alternative golf tour, lead, inevitably, by him. The "Tiger Tour", presumably. His reasons were dressed up, predictably, in spin and riddles, but boiled down to the almighty dollar. He thinks he's not paid enough and that the tour uses him to promote itself. Hello Tiger - anyone home? It's in your interest for the tour to do this! He also needlessly broke an Actor's Guild strike on doing commercials. This from a man who took home over $9 million in prize money alone last season. Predictably, what followed was a chorus of criticism from all but Tiger's most fervent admirers. Woods is the most highly-paid athlete on the planet and he was seen, by many, as biting the hand that feeds him.


I do agree, once again, that without the tour, there wouldn't be tournaments. But, this article is ignorantly written. Another person that thinks athletes are paid too much. Well, let me ask you think: Do you know anyone that can play the game of golf as good and as consistently as Tiger Woods? If you say Yes, your lying. Athletes condition constantly, practice constantly. If anyone on this board has any awareness of this, it is me. These guys spend a lot of their "free time" conditioning. Tiger should be paid as much as he gets because there is NO ONE like him. Similar with A-Rod... there aren't too many guys like him.


These days, he rarely plays outside the U.S., even when the prize money is astronomical. That's not good for golf's image, nor it's future. It would be nice to see Tiger start next year with a resolution to show a bit more class and humility - if he doesn't know how, he can just ask Jack Nicklaus.


In my opinion, Woods has shown great class and humility. He doesn't have to hop on a plane during the offseason to go play. Golfers get basically NO downtime.


Even Tiger Woods watched in respect as Nicklaus made his final appearance at the 18th, despite being just about to start his own final lap of honor.


Tiger Woods has always shown respect for Jack Nicklaus, Palmer, Byron Nelson, whom I have met, and most old time players.


Tiger still has a long way to go before the golfing public holds him in the same affection as the Golden Bear. The reception given to Jack was unthinkable, looking back to the days of his early rivalry with Arnold Palmer. Back then, Palmer was the much-loved veteran and Nicklaus the new kid on the block trying to snatch the great mans throne. Time moves on and the crowds took to Jack - like they'll take to Tiger. Providing he forgets about fattening his wallet from time to time.


He already has the "affection" of many, many people - a majority of golf fans, most of them in the young age groups(below 35), but we can only speculate. He already has the "crowds." What separates him from the great golfers in history: Nicklaus, Palmer, Nelson, Sarazen, Snead, Watson, Player, others, is tournament victories. He has a way to go until he reaches Nicklaus, but given his current pace, I think he can do it, although I anticipate a slow down.

Tiger has to protect his own interests first, and thats that. When you are an athlete of his caliber, you must protect everything to do with yourself, including your sponsors.


[Edited by iFroggy on 01-01-2001 at 04:25 PM]

[RaviPachai]

iFroggy,

I agree with what you're saying. You play golf I suspect iFroggy ? What is your handicap ?? I've been playing golf for 6 years and I have a 13 handicap (should be a bit lower but since I started University haven't had much time to go out).

Also, I thought that Tiger plays his fair share of tournaments which do not occur on US soil. When I said Tiger made Golf what it is today, I didn't mean Tiger made golf period, I meant Tiger is the reason why so many people tune in to watch golf tournaments.


Ravi

[iFroggy]

Well, to be honest, Nicklaus and Palmer popularized golf, if you will. Woods only made it more popular, the game was not in dire straights by any means.

I have played for about 4 years consistently. Played once in a while since I was 5. My Dad is a PGA Professional, and I would play more golf, only if I had more time. I am going to start making time as the U.S. Amateur qualifier here, and I would like to compete.

My handicap is in that area, but a bit lower. I am 16... the course I play at is really, really difficult. It is one of the Top 40 Courses in the country as rated by Golf Magazine.

Man, don't remind me, I want to get out a play golf more! :)

[iFroggy]

Marc, if your reading this, could you move it to the Golf forum? Thanks. :)

[RaviPachai]

I don't think Nicklaus and Palmer "popularized" golf so much as stirred up interest. But because of who Tiger is (his age and cultural background) he has definitely changed the rules in what was once know as the "rich..mans" sport, which is why I think he brought more to golf then Nicklaus and Palmer.

I live in Bermuda and my local club (we have about 9 courses on the island) is Mid-Ocean. I'm not sure if you've heard of it but they played the Gillette Tour Challenge here for the past 3 years in a row. It's pretty tough and ranked in the Top 100 Courses in the world by the same magazine I believe. Our signature hole ranked in the Top 10 in the world, I think.

I have played golf all over the world! I've played at St. Andrews, Royal Port Rush, and alot of others from the USA / Australia / Canada which probably wouldn't know. I've represented the Bermuda Junior Golf Association in Canada which was fun. They were suppose to send me away to Pinehurst, the BJGA, but the time conflicted with another trip that was planned. Ah well..Golf is a good game :)

Ravi

[Edited by RaviPachai on 01-01-2001 at 09:00 AM]

[iFroggy]

No, to say that is to disrespect Mr. Nicklaus and Mr. Palmer. They made golf popular. Woods, along with other factors, have made golf more popular have done a good amount for the popularity of the game. But, golf was not "unpopular" persay before hit started.

Also, Woods was not poor or anything as a child, he wasn't rich, but they did have money. I believe what you say to some extent, but he certainly has changed no rules at least in my opinion.

The course I play at is ranked 37th in the country by Golf Magazine. Exactly what is the name of your home course? I can't find any Bermuda course at all in the Top 100 World.

[Edited by iFroggy on 01-01-2001 at 04:24 PM]

[Mike Round]

Interesting replies to my article.
Firstly, for the record, I am a great admirer of Tiger Woods play - as is everyone who watches golf I should imagine. My point was - and it is a point made by many, including Nicklaus - that to keep the high TV viewing figures of last year Tiger Woods needs some decent competition. Winning majors by double digit scores isn't healthy.

Secondly, a person isn't "ignorant" because he or she holds an opinion that is contrary to your own. It's called free speech. Greed is, sadly, taking over sport. I'm in favor of athletes being paid for their services and skills handsomely - as Tiger is. However,listening to him whine about misuse of his "image" and poor appearance money is sickening. If you don't believe any of his comments regarding an alternative tour if he doesn't get the "respect" he feels he is due were motivated by money I suggest you are naive. Ignoring an Actors stike might seem a fun thing to do to you - less so to the thousands of struggling badly paid actors. Woods is a golfer not an actor. I refer you to the original article in Golf World if you don't believe this has a money aspect to it.
You say golfers get no downtime. They get as much downtime as they desire. Tiger can claim an injury if he wishes to skip a tournament or just take a week off. My point is he chooses to miss them outside the US - where golf is just as big a sport and where fans would like to see him.
Admiring Woods as a golfer doesn't mean having to get the prayer mat out to him on all matters. He's young and often acts immature. Hopefully he'll grow up a bit more in 2001.

[iFroggy]

I hope, for your sake, he doesn't change. He is a mature, well mannered individual. I did read the original GolfWorld article, as I do recieve it, and he DID support them for some time. I never said it was a fun thing to do, as you improperly suggested. I was in reference to the fact that I believe that the Actors Guild should be happy that Woods abided by their strike as long as he did.

I apologize for saying ignorant, your article was written more in a "downer" type of tone, with the sole context of the article being based on putting Woods down.

To quote another article on the subject:

"Woods had initially refused to shoot a non-union Nike ad on the second day of the strike, a gesture representing an early victory for SAG in its public-relations war with the ad industry. But SAG members were furious with what they saw as a betrayal by Woods over an Olympic-themed Buick ad that he shot in Toronto and his subsequent explanation that he needed to honor the sponsorship commitment."

However, he did apologize for this. But, he did have an obligation to his sponsors, who are the root of the "greed" you speak so fondly of, that is where most of his money is from.

Not in relation to sports, Elizabeth Hurley faced the same fine from the guild. She paid her fine and apologized.

To quote again:

"``The decision to shoot a commercial during the SAG strike was a difficult one,'' Woods said in a statement issued Thursday. ``I was facing the impossible task of trying to live up to my obligations to my sponsors while at the same time honoring my commitment to other SAG members. Now, more than ever, I understand how serious SAG's situation was and I apologize for any pain I may have caused."

Sure, it was a difficult decision, but one that had to be made. Woods has paying sponsors, and you can give sponsors that are supporting you this much waiting. Its not a "fun thing" to do. But, something that had to be done.

[RaviPachai]

Originally posted by iFroggy
No, to say that is to disrespect Mr. Nicklaus and Mr. Palmer. They made golf popular. Woods, along with other factors, have made golf more popular have done a good amount for the popularity of the game. But, golf was not "unpopular" persay before hit started.


Popular? Popular amongst who?? No I don't think they did, they stirred interest as I said. They stirred interest amongst "rich white males" (I didn't want to say this in my last message but I am left with no choice). Golf has always been seen as the "rich mans" sport.

Tiger inspired young minorities and showed them that it can be done. Alot, and I can assure you alot, of Tiger's backing (and why this game has become so much more popular) comes from the young / old people of all racial and cultural background. Sorry but I don't believe Palmer or Nicklaus did this or could have done this. Yes they made some exciting games, and yes they brought excitement, but did they reach segments of the population that Tiger has ? or did they influence them to take an interest in the game or the players ? no, I personally don't believe they did.

What I'm trying to say is yes Nicklaus and Palmer deserve all the respect that they get, but when they became professional they weren't seen as any different then any of the other players (other then they could play a little better), when Tiger entered he brought with him a wide variety of cultural backgrounds and youth. And what I see is that any cultural background will support people of the same cultural background. I could have said this in a more obvious manner but I have chosen this way to save any remarks which could be considered offensive. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Sorry but I still hold the belief that the article was poorly written, and it appears as though it was based on one article which was read somewhere. Before you make your assumptions go and do some research. You find out how many billions of dollars these organisations and associations are making from these players and you ask yourself do they really deserve a piece of that? And then I hope you'd see where I was coming from.

Here's a little advice. When writing an article don't base the whole article on personal opinions, that isn't only what people want to read. Add a little facts and some interesting points. I think you do yourself a grave disservice when you write an article which accounts for one half (or part) of a full story.

Winning majors but doubles is also a fine thing to do. Tiger has worked for that and he deserves it. If the other tour players have trouble keeping up with him that isn't a fault of Tigers. So to say it isn't healty, I think isn't right.

Ravi

[iFroggy]

Originally posted by RaviPachai

Popular? Popular amongst who?? No I don't think they did, they stirred interest as I said. They stirred interest amongst "rich white males" (I didn't want to say this in my last message but I am left with no choice). Golf has always been seen as the "rich mans" sport.

[/B]

I will agree that it was for the most part a rich mans and that it was majority whites, but to say that is to block out everything.

But, public courses, and lower facility courses made the game available for lower to middle class whites and minorities.

"Always" ? No.

Originally posted by RaviPachai

Tiger inspired young minorities and showed them that it can be done. Alot, and I can assure you alot, of Tiger's backing (and why this game has become so much more popular) comes from the young / old people of all racial and cultural background. Sorry but I don't believe Palmer or Nicklaus did this or could have done this. Yes they made some exciting games, and yes they brought excitement, but did they reach segments of the population that Tiger has ? or did they influence them to take an interest in the game or the players ? no, I personally don't believe they did.

[/B]

I personally believe they did. They ignited the game and made it what it is today. Like I said, Tiger has brought more youth to the game and more minorities, I'm not arguing that. But, to go as far as saying that Tiger made the game, is crazy. Golf would have survived well without Tiger Woods. They made "exciting games"? From your tone, it is my impression, you have no idea of golf history. Exciting games is something that you do with your friends at your home course. Those two people, with likeable styles and attitudes, have done no less then Woods will ever accomplish.

Originally posted by RaviPachai
What I'm trying to say is yes Nicklaus and Palmer deserve all the respect that they get, but when they became professional they weren't seen as any different then any of the other players (other then they could play a little better), when Tiger entered he brought with him a wide variety of cultural backgrounds and youth. And what I see is that any cultural background will support people of the same cultural background. I could have said this in a more obvious manner but I have chosen this way to save any remarks which could be considered offensive. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
[/B]

Thats pretty obvious. I haven't contested that he has brought minorities and more young to the game. There was already a great deal of youth and it was starting to pick up prior to the time any of us knew who Tiger Woods was.

To his credit, as I have said, and NEVER contested, but you continue to say, Tiger has brought more youth and an array of cultural backgrounds to the game.

There are also minorities, non white, that do not like Tiger Woods, because he was not a "poor minority" or anything like that, as I said, he was privileged, had money, and oppurtunity.

But, of course, there aren't and will never be too many people with his talent. There could be a poor minority, or although you may not think so, a poor white child that has the talent, but not the privilege or oppurtunity. Maybe you want to think about that when all you talk about is minorities. They are not the only ones that don't have the chance.

[Mike Round]

In reply to Ravi - my article was NOT based on anyone else's work. It was a personal view of the golfing year. A simple recap of who won what would have been particularly boring to read as everyone knows those facts already. It was intended to get people thinking - and obviously worked to a degree. I wasn't looking for people to agree - it's a free world so you can choose to agree or disagree.
A word of advice for you - try not to be so patronizing in your advice.

[RaviPachai]

Obviously you missed my point to my last post. My point was not that young minorities don't have the chance, which is why they follow Tiger. My point is that Tiger has broken the trend of having "rich white males" lead the game of golf, and for this reason alone, he has a big following...of white, black, asian, everyone. His desire and drive to be better then these players has also influenced many people to watch or play the game.

And when I say Nicklaus and Palmer made the game exciting, that's exactly what I meant. Tiger makes golf exciting, which is another reason why people tune in on Sunday afternoon. And you say Palmer and Nicklaus but why are you leaving out Ben Hogan, Byron Lee Nelson, Gary Player ? they didn't make the game what it is today? I believe so, so why only point out Palmer and Nicklaus ?

Mike, I'm sorry but if I am going to do something I am going to do it to the best of my ability. My opinion is that the article was poorly written, a little more effort could have been put in to provide a variety of points of golf. Though I guess tiger has been the focus of attention and everybody wants to hear about him.

My golf course is Mid-Ocean Golf Club iFroggy, I will have to find out which magazine it's from. I know we are not in a current Top 100 but one of the past.

Ravi Pachai

[Mike Round]

Ravi - I suggest you submit a review of the golfing year for publication or are you just another armchair QB?

[iFroggy]

I name Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus because they brought more people to the game.

The players you mentioned, among the best all time, did bring some people to the game, but Nicklaus and Palmer made golf a very widely known sport.

I'll have to do some research, but I believe Nicklaus wasn't a "rich white male." I'll get back to you.

[RaviPachai]

iFroggy it doesn't matter..I'm not going to go into why because then this will head towards a more cultural / racial talk then golf. Anyway iFroggy, what is the name of your golf course and where is it located??

Mike, I don't write articles for the reason that I know how much time and effort they take. You seem to have taken some offense of the way me and iFroggy feel about your article but then you say we can have free speech. You write and submit an article, expect critiscm, I know that if I was to write an article I would write it to the best of my ability and not just slap some thoughts and opinions together.

Ravi

[Edited by RaviPachai on 01-02-2001 at 12:27 PM]

[Mike Round]

Ravi - How can an article about the golfing year NOT contain opinions and thoughts??? That's the whole point of writing unless you are just going to present statistics. I don't care that you don't like my article - I'd be worried if you did! - but your criticisms are based on a serious devotion to Tiger Woods rather than any facts or knowledge of writing it seems.
Try writing an article one day without thoughts or opinions - see if anyone reads more than the first few paragraphs.

[iFroggy]

I'll have to agree with Mike on the serious devotion to Tiger Woods. I am a big fan of Tiger, but I can be objective.

And Ravi - My course is Dancing Rabbit Golf Club in Philadelphia, Mississippi. A 36 hole Tom Fazio and Jerry Pate designed facility. Ranked in the Top 40 resorts in the country in Golf and Travel - I believe it was them, and they were like 20 something. Also ranked 37th on the Top 100 You Can Play in the US.

[RaviPachai]

I do like Tiger Woods but I am hardly devoted to him. I have done my research as you can see in my first post. I don't just say hey I read this article now I am going to go write my own based on what they said, even if it isnt true.

iFroggy I think your devotion is to Nicklaus, and i can see why but I think that Tiger deserves more respect then you give him. Also I've never heard of that course. Does it rank anything outside of the USA? I looked at the golf magazine.com and I see that my golf club (Mid-Ocean Golf Club) got an honorable mention for the top 100 in the world, and also ranked 1 on golf digest top 100 courses to play outside the USA. Like I said we have had a few big tournaments at my club with players like Payne Stewart, Nick Price, Craig Stadler, Cory Pavin (when he was in his prime) and alot of other big names from all of the tours.

If you look back Mike I don't see any interesting items in your post other then you reiterating what you said in your article and this "free speech" stuff.

Ravi

[Edited by RaviPachai on 01-02-2001 at 05:30 PM]

[iFroggy]

Ravi,

I never said my course was better then yours, but your all mad, so you can say what you want about my course, I don't really care a whole lot. :) Could you give me a link to the latest Best Non-US Golf Courses from Golf Digest. I could not find it on their site. All I saw was that your course was number one in the small area of Bermuda. Thanks.

Also, my devotion is not to Nicklaus, to Woods, but to Golf. I am a fan of Nicklaus, a bigger fan of Woods. And Woods, I have the utmost respect for the way he has handled himself, he is a great person, from my knowledge, and onviously, a great golfer and athlete.

But, as I have said, and it is my opinion, that Nicklaus did and has done more for the game - and I don't think Woods can ever exceed what Nicklaus has done. At this time, he could probably beat most golfers in the history of the game in there prime. Lets just leave it at the fact we have differing opinions. Agree to disagree in a matter of speaking.

[RaviPachai]

No I'm not upset about anything. I know the area in which my local club ranks because I have played at some of the best courses in the world. I just have seriously never heard of that club and I thought the name was rather amusing :).

Ravi