Can the PGA survive without a true superstar? | The Tylt
Can the PGA survive without a true superstar?
Like a one-horse race, one player dominating golf is a pretty boring situation. Results are seemingly determined after the first tee shot, and there is no struggle at the top of the leaderboard. Parity in the PGA is good because competitive balance makes things unpredictable.
Every tournament, there’s a new star that appears after years of hard work and dedication to the sport. You don’t know who might win the next tournament, which leaves fans on their edge of their seat wondering who will appear to be the next star. Parity is good for the PGA.
@RyanBrownWJOX hearing a lot ab how golf NEEDS a Tiger. I think the competitiveness of the field is great
You want to talk about boring? Try having to watch no-name golfers get hot and win a tournament on a fluke. Even your U.S. Open champion admits golf is boring. Any athlete can get lucky enough to win a tournament. The PGA Tour needs a dominant superstar because it generates more interest, and attaches a face to the sport.
The PGA Tour drew huge galleries not because of unpredictability, but because it had dominant stars who intrigued fans with unflappable talent. The ability of star player to control an entire tournament with their play enthralls diehard and casual fans alike. Tiger Woods was almost single-handedly responsible for professional golf's resurgence during. Golf purses increased with more sponsorship money pouring in. Parity is fine, but if you want more drama and entertainment, having a superstar is the only way to go.
Why would he want to broadcast that load of losers? Tiger Woods needs to come back, golf is dead