Is golf lacking a little bit of stardust right now ?

From pretty much watching any golf that was on TV I have really struggled to be interested in any this year, even the majors. Quite a few reasons for this but I think one of them is that I just find every event a bit samey, in fact all the players to be very good, competent players but there is an absence of stars that just blow you away. I know Rory has the ability to do this but in reality he doesn't do it very often, 3 wins in what 4-5 years as a pro, its hardly Tigeresque though obviously he will probably win a lot more events. Kaymer who I thought would really kick on has had a very poor year and the likes of Donald, Stricker and Westwood are clearly fantastic players but Im not in awe of what they can do and to be honest I dont think the other pros are either.
So you have a very level playing field really, with the decline of Woods (permanent or not, who can say), Mickleson less prominent on a regular basis, and other stars like VJ, Ernie and Goosen really struggling there just isn't that much going on where you can be really wowed by what anyone is doing. The golf is good, some of its exciting....but I really dont care who wins as at the start of the week it could be one of 50 guys and the week after the same thing applies.
Im not sayng I want one player to totally dominate, but golf (well any sport IMO) needs stars and it needs rivalries possibly even more. A rivalry of 50 players just isn't that exciting, for me anyway.I know this will all change, some of the younger guys will kick on, some wont, but right now Im finding it all just a bit lacklustre.

The thing that made the likes of Els, Vijay and phil superstars was how quickly they racked up 20 wins. I am not sure with the current depth of the game whether the pros of the future, event he very best, can expect to win that number of tournaments in a career. Just look at the number of different winners you get on tour these days.

The other problem is that no golfer will ever match tiger in terms of worldwide status achieved. We golf fans got used to having the biggest name in sport never mind golf playing our sport. This clearly elevated golf to a new level of media and fan recognition and status. So given this I have to agree with you that golf lacks that kind of presence.

Where I do not agree is that the season has been dull without such a character in the game, even I the great tiger lover can live without him, as it has produced four very interesting majors. To some degree the normal events could do with a bit of a boost but for the real fans this season has been great. It all depends on your reasons for watching the game and what you think a superstar could bring. The tiger years raked in the dollars if nothing else.

It would be interesting to see what sport golfers earned similar amounts to before and after the rise of tiger?

What do you mean by real fans Mac ? Im not saying golf needs Tiger in my post, Im just saying it would be more interesting with genuine stars. If you look at what Djokovic has done this year its just amazing really, especially after a lot of peope had wrote him off. Now he stands on the brink of one of the great performances over the course of a season in the Open era.
I love watching Barcelona when Messi is playing, less so when he is not in their side even though it would still have a lot of superb players in it.

Maybe. I'm not sure of the need of 'stardust' as I watch it for the golf, whomever is playing the good stuff, rather than some superstar.

With the disappearance of TW at the top, no-one has replaced him (even closely) and those you might imagine would fill in, haven't really been close to doing so.

Just a phase I think. I'm sure there'll be 2, 3 or more players from the current crop who'll come through and win consistently.

I have a feeling that Finchem has caused this, by starting to engineer the pairings, which has now been copied on the ET. It made for some good television to start with as we had the 'young guns' going at it head to head. We had the worlds top 4 all in the same group, we've seen the big hitters, the ex champions etc and been the same since. Finchem tried to get rid of the Tiger factor and downgraded a lot of groupings by doing so. The gallery's were buzzing around following these supergroups and leaving holes elsewhere. Top players were hardly seen on tv as we zoomed in on the supergroups. Seems to be, gone are the days when groups could have an amateur, a top ranked player and a couple of journeymen getting a bit of glory, its now the new hyped groups and the rest

"Maybe. I'm not sure of the need of 'stardust' as I watch it for the golf, whomever is playing the good stuff, rather than some superstar."

But superstars tend to play the good stuff more often, thats how they become superstars. You know when you see a guy winning his 4th or 5th major that he is the real deal, not just a good player having a good week. For me part of watching sport is to be blow away by the very best guys and what they can do, Messi, Jordan, Mayweather, Warne to name but a few. These guys have clearly enhanced the games they have played massively.

So..who do we think the next wave of charismatic superstars will be? I use the word charismatic because I would like to see a bunch of guys that interact well with the spectators, talk freely to the media instead of giving robotic answers and play with their hearts on their sleeve.

Sergio ticks all the boxes for me but I don't think he will contend/win until he resolves his putting issues. Rory will obviously be in the frame. Rickeeee....hmm, jury is out on that one. Jason Day is a definite maybe. Struggling to think of any others after that lot.

I reckon Diggers is right, but one of the reasons is that golfers are spread way thinner these days than even ten years ago when there was a definitive off-season on both main Tours.
I looked at Vijay Sngh's purple patch for instance, and he seldom played less than 27 PGA Tour events, sometimes up to 30.
With the exception of some rookies and tour stragglers, no-one will play that many tournaments this year. Winning is a habit and today's golfers are just not playing enough, too many distractions and a shorter season with compelling appearance fees available around the world where guys are more interested in the available guaranteed cash rather than actually trying to win.

That might have worked for Woods in the past, and possibly Els too, but most guys need to learn how to win and make it habit-forming, yet there's only one American golfer on the PGA Tour younger than Tiger who's won more than five times and most golf fans wouldn't guess who that is!

Believe only Ogilvy, Sabbatini, Scott and Sergio of International players fall in to the same category. Would think the European Tour would follow much the same pattern.

Stardust sticks to winners, not top ten accumulators.

Diggers wrote:"Maybe. I'm not sure of the need of 'stardust' as I watch it for the golf, whomever is playing the good stuff, rather than some superstar."

But superstars tend to play the good stuff more often, thats how they become superstars. You know when you see a guy winning his 4th or 5th major that he is the real deal, not just a good player having a good week. For me part of watching sport is to be blow away by the very best guys and what they can do, Messi, Jordan, Mayweather, Warne to name but a few. These guys have clearly enhanced the games they have played massively.

True. Hopefully, one of the current up-and-coming players will really kick on; ideally more than one as there hasn't been a good rivalry for a bit.

kwinigolfer wrote:...With the exception of some rookies and tour stragglers, no-one will play that many tournaments this year. Winning is a habit and today's golfers are just not playing enough, too many distractions and a shorter season with compelling appearance fees available around the world where guys are more interested in the available guaranteed cash rather than actually trying to win.

That might have worked for Woods in the past, and possibly Els too, but most guys need to learn how to win and make it habit-forming, yet there's only one American golfer on the PGA Tour younger than Tiger who's won more than five times and most golf fans wouldn't guess who that is!...

A very good point methinks . Too much money in the game outside of actual prize money these days?

Kwini

Is that golfer Kuchar?

Actually not sure he is younger than Tiger?

Kuchar has the youth but is only 50% of the way towards the wins.

Perhaps the piles of loot that he and Donald have accumlated over the past two years makes Diggers' point nicely. Neither exactly are household names to non-golf fans, but both are wealthy beyond (probably) their wildest dreams..

Geoff Ogilvy?

Oh, you said American!
Damn it!!

I'm going to guess either Jonathon Byrd (suspect he's younger than Tiger but not sure if he has enough wins) or Zach Johnson (who may well be older than Tiger)

That's the best i've got!!

Its Zach Johnson

MPB,
Zach Johnson just looks older than Tiger. At least, he used to, perhaps not so much now. Seven wins, mostly on pretty good courses. (Byrd has five, mostly in pretty poor events.)

Rossa,

When Zach Johnson won the Masters (which in honesty was the first time i'd really noticed him) i thought he would go on to have a seriously good career. He looked so strong in every department and didn't look like he out of place with the green jacket wearers at all.

I know he's done ok and he's not finished yet but i'd have expected him to have won more

kwinigolfer wrote:Zach Johnson just looks older than Tiger.

That must be a worry for Zach. All that praising the Lord and He hasn't even rewarded him with more youthful looks than the Fallen One....

Good player though, Johnson.

I'm not so sure about stars, but I think golf needs a few more characters to make things interesting. To the purist, it might be fascinating to see a technically good golfer playing, but I think we need more players with the unpredictability and genius of Seve to make watching golf exciting and fun.

Kwinni

I remember Nicklaus being intervied on his thoughts about young American golfers.
The interviewer mentioned four names and Nicklaus responded that three of them were older than him.

MustPuttBetter wrote:When Zach Johnson won the Masters (which in honesty was the first time i'd really noticed him) i thought he would go on to have a seriously good career. He looked so strong in every department and didn't look like he out of place with the green jacket wearers at all.

I know he's done ok and he's not finished yet but i'd have expected him to have won more

He's probably not praying enough.

Only thing worse than an obese pro is an evangelist one.

LadyPutt wrote:I'm not so sure about stars, but I think golf needs a few more characters to make things interesting. To the purist, it might be fascinating to see a technically good golfer playing, but I think we need more players with the unpredictability and genius of Seve to make watching golf exciting and fun.

If Seve hadnt won 5 majors (at a fairly young age) and 10's of other tournaments then he wouldnt have been remembered the way he is now, he just wouldnt have had the same exposure. It was his success that served to highlight everything else about him.

Diggers I fully agree that success is key to a sportsman gaining superstardom and that personality is of secondary importance. As I said before it will be hard for the current and future generation to win as often as the past generations so we maybe have to revaluate what constitutes super star success in golf?

I'm getting a bit sick of people saying stuff like 'we'll never see another person dominate like them'
Why not? There's always one per generation who does.

Totally agree, today's players lack the class that Els, Vijay, Tiger, and even Greg Norman had a few years back, the golf was never dull then, but I think there is so much money in the game, that in a few good weeks, players can amass fortunes, so they loose, some of the hunger the older generation had to perform well.

Now also they will build a schedule that will see them play only 3 weeks in a row and then have the next 3/5 off and still earn well over a million dollars with just top10 finishes.

super

Again you miss the point, there may well be another tiger but due to a stronger field they will not win as often. For a player to win 18 majors by say 2025 they will have to have been considerably better than Jack and Tiger.

So even you once a generation "tiger" is not good enough to dominate like the man himself.

It wasn't the need for tour prize money that kept the hateful Woods winning. He'd already made enough from his first sponsorship deals to set him up for life.

Mac, there's nothing to suggest that one player couldn't dominate like Woods did. You say the standard has risen, but no single section I.e the current top ten is winning the majority as you would expect if the standard was so high at the top, the events are shared out quite equally amongst a very wide ranking spread. There are a few players at the top who are better than the rest technically, but they are hardly miles ahead. Someone could easily step forward and take control and amass enough ranking points to make them seem dominant.
I actually think the standard of 'the rest' was always good, just that Woods, much to my disappointment was far better. Just because he's no good anymore doesn't mean the days of a dominant player (hopefully not Woods) will never return.

Super wrote;

a few players at the top who are better than the rest ethnically

Super what are you suggesting there, that is a really terrible concept to bring into this discussion? I am not sure what ethnicities you deem superior but I hope you know that sort of thinking makes little sense.

The point is the wins are spread more evenly because more players have more talent.

Great point Diggers, I was thinking the same the other day when listening to the USPGA ( Murdoch does not get my money ) Bradley and Duffner in the lead, did not get my interest up. Whilst the game is clearly blessed with good players and so many that can win, it does need a superstar to burst through. All sports not football needs something special for exposure, to get near the top of the sporst news or back pages of the papers. At the moment it is to rare to see sporst news leading with golf. Lack of this exposure could lead to lack of interest in the sport.

Mac, that was of course supposed to say 'technically'
A mere typo from my predictive text.
In the absence of a dominant player of course the events will be shared more equally, it doesn't necessarily mean the standard has increased. No marks and journeymen have always won events, even in dominant periods, just they are given more credence now.

super_realist wrote:Mac, that was of course supposed to say 'technically'
A mere typo from my predictive text.
In the absence of a dominant player of course the events will be shared more equally, it doesn't necessarily mean the standard has increased. No marks and journeymen have always won events, even in dominant periods, just they are given more credence now.

Interesting that your predictive text is familiar with the word ethnically.......

Mine is fixated on "banker"

Alright, let's put the cat among the pigeons and suggest, whether wittingly or not, super_realist might have the germ of a point.

I wrote a comment on 606 some years ago suggesting that there WAS/IS an ethnic element to success in golf.

Tiger and Vijay both clearly come from minorities as far as America is concerned and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that their single-minded, chip-on-the-shoulder determination to work harder and more competitively at the game helped them succeed. Perhaps you could say the same about some of the Asian ladies (or even Lorena Ochoa) on the LPGA Tour. They are culturally apart and come from cultures sometimes thought to be more driven to excellence than their American or European counterparts.

Sorenstam is the only exception to that possibility in the past fifteen years, someone whose ability and competitiveness transcended the game.

At the time I suggested that the next truly great golfer might come from India or Africa, but the Beeb took the post down and there was no discussion.

Four years ago I thought Anthony Kim and Kevin Na, two of the youngest pros on Tour, might be the role-models for a new wave, but instead they became role-models for boorish behaviour and talent squandered.

But I stand by my suggestion and princedracula's observation about the promise of young Czech golfers offers the chance that Eastern Europe might also breed a dominant player.

Kwini, the reasons for potential success you mention dont really have anything to do with ethnicity, just with socio economics.
One would have imagined plenty of working class white guys would have plenty of desire to be successful at golf if they played, but Id imagine that the majority of successful players from the US and Europe have been middle class.
At the end of the day a lot of it is about the numbers. Im guessing an awful lot of young ladies play golf in Asia, how often do you see a woman under 30 on a goolf courtse in thE UK ?

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:Mac, that was of course supposed to say 'technically'
A mere typo from my predictive text.
In the absence of a dominant player of course the events will be shared more equally, it doesn't necessarily mean the standard has increased. No marks and journeymen have always won events, even in dominant periods, just they are given more credence now.

Interesting that your predictive text is familiar with the word ethnically.......

Why is that interesting Diggers?
You might as well ask to borrow Mac's tin foil hat if you are making those guardians conspiracy theorist assumptions If you miss out the t of the word 'technical' or make some.other rudimentary error i'll wager most modern phones will make the same suggested interpolation of the word.

Digs,
I disagree, there's another element other than wanting to excel, it's being driven to excel. And part of that is coming from a culture where extreme sacrifice is acceptable.
(A study released this week showed, for instance, the success of Asian American children at college acceptance tests in the U.S. An extraordinary margin of success over other ethnic groups - and I'm well aware that many come from high-achieving families, but many are also refugees in the poorest circumstances.)
But I'm not precious about the debate, just think there might be something to it.

Kwini
Tend not to agree, we have had the likes of Greg, Jack and Ernie who played for personal pride, and didn't like getting beat, then Vijay, Els and Tiger, who had the same mind set in not getting beat. The players now are prepared to get beat providing they pick up a big cheque.

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:Mac, that was of course supposed to say 'technically'
A mere typo from my predictive text.
In the absence of a dominant player of course the events will be shared more equally, it doesn't necessarily mean the standard has increased. No marks and journeymen have always won events, even in dominant periods, just they are given more credence now.

Interesting that your predictive text is familiar with the word ethnically.......

Why is that interesting Diggers?
You might as well ask to borrow Mac's tin foil hat if you are making those guardians conspiracy theorist assumptions If you miss out the t of the word 'technical' or make some.other rudimentary error i'll wager most modern phones will make the same suggested interpolation of the word.

I could mention the Daily Mail as often as you mention the Guardian. I know which one Id rather be accused of reading. I was only kidding anyway, though my Iphone (and most smart phones I believe) creates a predictive text dictionary based on words that you have previously used rather than starting off with a full dictionary.

I know some of the 'hardcore' 606ers have heavily slated him on here and I also accept he can come across as a self-publicist and a bit arrogant, but please hear me out before you all jump down my throat;

A while ago Golf Monthly ran an article on Gary Player 'my life in pictures' and he alluded to the fact that most top-level pro golfers are very comfortable compared to how things were in his day. He cited examples of not seeing one of his children born, because he simply just could not afford to travel back to South Africa and miss out on a couple of tournaments. He was of the opinion (and he did have a bit of a dig at a few English players) that the grit and determination just isn't there in some of them; they simply don't want it enough.

What I want to see is someone who goes out there with a 'do or die' attitude; someone who plays with grace and humility, but someone with a burning desire to be the best. Too many of them have a 'Shooby Doo' attitude at the moment and I don't think enough of the top 20 players in world golf compete against eachother enough.

Like it or loath the game, but you compare the competitiveness of some of the lame-duck golf tourneys right now to PDC darts where you've got fierce competition between the top 20 players in the world all year long and the sponsorship is nothing like what golfers get; so the prize money really matters and the pressure and performance ratchets right up.

oldparwin wrote:Kwini
Tend not to agree, we have had the likes of Greg, Jack and Ernie who played for personal pride, and didn't like getting beat, then Vijay, Els and Tiger, who had the same mind set in not getting beat. The players now are prepared to get beat providing they pick up a big cheque.

I'd prefer to be accused of reading neither. Both are dreadful rags. Choosing either is a bit like chossing between Hitler and Stalin.
You should have seen my phone in the beginning when it only had a basic dictionary. Some of the suggestions that unwittingly made it through made me look like that simpleton Simba was writing them.

I wonder what's become of Senator Simba? Have you beaten him into submission s_r??

Hopefully we'll never have him darken our doors again. He was intolerable.

I for one am disappointed Simba never made the transition to V2 - unless he's here under another name. Often a pain (well mostly) but he never was a typical troublemaker like others can be (and I include some who have made the transition in that)

If Simba had made the jump it would be abundantly clear to one and all!

Davie wrote:I for one am disappointed Simba never made the transition to V2 - unless he's here under another name. Often a pain (well mostly) but he never was a typical troublemaker like others can be (and I include some who have made the transition in that)

Just cos you don't like my musical tastes Davie, there's no need to get personal. I do have feelings you know

I'd probably laugh at that if I could remember what your musical tastes were!

I liked simba, and for S_R to suggest someone else was intolerable is just plain funny.

To be fair, Simba made some decent points at times. Unfortunately everything he said came with a Tiger tag on it and that was a put off! Poor lad