|
|
|
Baxter's Babble
Tiger vs. Golf
Tiger is good for golf. One needs to look no further than at the massive increase in prize money since he has been a pro. In 1996, Tiger turned pro near the end of the year and the top of the money list earned $1,944,034. Last year, that number was matched by Retief Goosen, who finished 51st on the money list. Where is all this money coming from and why do purses keep rising? Clearly, tournament sponsors are willing to pony up the cash for TV and other reasons, because there is so much interest in the sport, especially when Tiger is in contention.
When he first came on the scene and took the world by storm at the 1997 Masters, the whirlwind of excitement that followed swept up the nation, and everyone – especially kids – was suddenly interested in golf. Since then, Tiger has been one of the top ambassadors of the sport.
And what an ambassador he is. From a uniquely mixed ancestry, he embodies the melting pot of America by being African-American, Chinese, Thai, Native American and Dutch all at the same time. And not only does he represent a great cross-section of America, but he is a very intelligent professional who is a student of the game and its history. During the PGA Championship last year, a reporter asked Tiger if he thought it was very unique that all the 2007 major winners up until that time (Johnson in the Masters, Cabrera in the U.S. Open and Harrington in the British Open) were all first-time major winners. Without missing a beat, he replied that it wasn’t strange at all and then quickly named the year and the winners when it last happened. I doubt that reporter could quickly recant those details – and I seriously doubt many on Tour could do the same.
Besides an ambassador of the sport, he is an excellent role model (outside of a few choice words that the ever-present microphones pick up). Few people work harder at the sport or at their endeavors outside the sport. Before he endorses anyone or anything, he performs intense research to ensure it’s an entity he is comfortable with. He is married with a child and, by all accounts, is an excellent family man. He is very close with his mother and had a very strong relationship with his father. All sports should have as good a citizen as Mr. Woods as their foremost performer.
Which brings us back to the question at hand: Is Tiger good for golf? There can be no doubt. He is arguably the greatest golfer of all time. And when he passes – if he passes – Jack Nicklaus with the most career major wins, there will be no argument. To be able to witness something like this is a treat. Every golfing fan owes it to themselves to go see him in person. Do whatever you have to do, but you need to see him play when he is at his peak, and I think he is there now.
Besides, if Tiger’s dominance is so boring, why do so many people tune in to see him? Why do the media cover him so much? Because he is what people want to see. And if he brings attention and viewers to the game of golf then, yes, he is good for golf. If he is an excellent ambassador of the sport and a great role model, then yes, he is good for golf.
—Baxter Stewart
I disagree with anyone who tells me that golf needs Tiger and that golf would be struggling, right alongside tennis, without Tiger. When he first came on the scene years ago, he did bring a lot of attention and a lot of new interest in golf, but that interest quickly faded. And in the wake of that faded interest, we are dealing with country clubs that are closing their doors, declining participation all over the country and declining television audiences for a number of great events.
When he doesn’t show up (and unless it’s a major, a world championship or an event thrown by him or his sponsors, he won’t show up), no one watches. The fixation on Tiger is so great that no one is interested in anyone else. Ask the organizers of the International . . . the great, unique tournament that gave up when Tiger quit showing up. Ask the folks who run the Texas Open or any of the other formerly great, historic tournaments that now struggle because no one tunes in if Tiger isn’t there. Despite what some people might think, those tournaments are still great television. Golf fans would still enjoy watching the drama as it unfolded if not for their mistaken opinion that without Tiger, why watch?
I think without Tiger’s overriding popularity, those golf fans would watch. They would latch on to Mickelson or Stricker or Els or someone else, similarly to how folks latch on to their favorite NASCAR driver (which is not to say I, in any way, compare golf to NASCAR other than it’s not a team sport in the traditional sense). In so doing, they would watch each week to see how their guy is doing.
People want to see competition, and the professional game would be stronger week in and week out, through the whole season, than it is now. Strong competition and a slew of various winners would ensure everyone would have something or someone to cheer for. Just look at pro football, which has the most parity of all sports and perhaps the biggest and strongest fan base. Ticket prices are ridiculous, and every weekend before and during the season, the NFL receives incredible attention. Television ratings are through the roof and more people play fantasy football than we would ever imagine. And why? Because of parity. Even in the age of the Patriot “dynasty,” on any given Sunday people know anything can, and usually does, happen.
The other reason I think Tiger is bad for golf: The over-exposure he gets detracts from the true champions when others win. When Trevor Immelman turned in a stunning performance to win the Masters, over half the coverage was about Tiger NOT winning. What a disservice to golf and to Trevor.
Yes, without Tiger, golf would be stronger because the competition would be tougher and more interesting every week. People would love the sport that I love and understand that strong competition is good competition . . . they would tune in to watch it and we would see renewed interest and participation at all levels.
—Wesley Raguet
Drug Testing
So, I’ve been following this drug-testing thing they are talking about for pro golfers and wanted to offer my two cents. This testing doesn’t kick in until July, so maybe I’ll change my mind by then, but I think I go along with one of the talking heads on TV who said it seems like all you really need to test is one guy – does it really matter what the rest of them are doing?
Speaking of Tiger, he has come out in support of testing. I don’t think I can blame him – he has put in the work and slowly turned into what I would actually call an athlete. Now, as everyone plays catch-up, it only makes sense that he wouldn’t want anyone to cut any corners to get there faster.
A quick look around the rest of the Tour doesn’t reveal many bulging biceps or ’roided-out, ripped-up physiques. Heck, let’s look at the major winners last year. Zach Johnson won the Masters on the longest Augusta setup ever, and he’s a pretty short knocker and all-around good kid from Iowa. Zach is in no way “built.” I think he goes 5’10” and maybe 165. In other words, anywhere but the golf course, I think I could take him (mind you, I mean back when I was in my prime). Unless of course, he happens to know judo or something, and then it might be an even fight.
After that, the U.S. Open was won by a dude nicknamed The Duck. I’m not kidding – and he really looks like some sort of overgrown, barnyard-fattened duck. Angel Cabrera chain-smoked his way around the course and has a big, naturally broad-shouldered build that explains his length off the tee. Nope – no drugs there either, unless nicotine counts. Then, the British Open was won by Padraig Harrington. I’ll admit—Paddy is pretty fit for 36 years old. But he is mostly the lean kind of fit than the muscled kind. At about 6’1” and 195 pounds, he probably has some tough, bare-knuckle, Irish pub brawls in his past, so I won’t be getting into any donnybrooks any time soon with that fellah…but I still don’t think he is on any juice. The final major, the PGA, was won by Tiger, so again, if we don’t test him, why bother?
A quick look around the rest of the tour reveals such beauties as Tim “Lumpy” Herron, Charlie “Swizzle Stick” Howell III, and just about every size in between. There is even some fancy-pants dude the chicks all like named Camillo Villegas (don’t ask me how to pronounce that, please). But outside of some rare near misses and a ridiculous way of reading putts, why would we care what he is doing when he isn’t modeling? Even old Mr. Number 2, aka Lefty, isn’t much to look at. Sure, he thinned out a bit last year, but let’s face it – he has pretty much needed a bra for the last five to 10 years.
So no one in their right mind would think of testing this crew for steroids and other muscle-builders, so what are they testing for, anyway? I heard at a tournament early in the year, they pulled all the players into meetings to talk about the supplements they take. Anyone who has been at a tournament lately knows they all are chewing on some energy bar or mixing some electrolyte and hydrating stuff into their water between shots, so it stands to reason that they would want to check out what that stuff is. Maybe it’s all good stuff on the up-and-up, but maybe some of it would set off a positive result like some dudes claim cough medicines do. If that happens and we get one of those long, drawn out controversies like what happened with the winner of that Frenchie bicycle race last year, then how bad and distracting would that be?
I just read that the full list of illegal items is in 10 categories and isn’t available to the public as I type this up. So that means for now, we have to guess what beta-blockers and other calming drugs will be on the list. I know some of the guys I play with keep up a nice steady flow of beer through their round to stay calm and take the edge off. So is that illegal? If so, John Daly is screwed – unless he has a late afternoon tee time and everything from the night before has worked its way through. And what about nicotine? If that is out, then Daly is really screwed, along with The Duck and a bunch of other smokers. (Hogan smoked like crazy when he was on the course, by the way.)
My final take then is this: Golf is a grand sport that requires power one moment and remarkable touch the next. Because of this, I am not sure many drugs would help anyone perform in this sport. You cannot take one thing to calm you down over a delicate short-sided chip and then expect to be able to rip a 300-plus-yard drive in a few minutes. And vice versa – get all juiced up for a long drive and see what happens to your touch around the greens.
The tradition of the sport is also at odds with drugs and the need to drug test. This has long been a sport where you call your own fouls, and for that, it’s a beautiful, noble sport. I don’t even like it when TV viewers call in about broken rules they think they see on the tube; so I really don’t like Big Brother Finchem getting into the blood vessels of the top players. Give them guidelines and ask them to sign off on their compliance if you must, then let the legal system manage the rest. If a player accepts a shipment of HGH or turns up in the files of someone like BALCO, then ban them for life or something. Leave the “tests of golf” to the people who set up the U.S. Open courses (which, by the way, I have some opinions about too!).
—Baxter Stewart
Email Baxter and we’ll print some of your responses and opinions.
baxter@kcgolfermagazine.com |
|
