Tiger out of US open

First topic message reminder :

Tiger Woods has revealed he will miss this month's US Open because of injury.

The former world number one suffered a sprain to his left knee and mild strain to his left Achilles tendon during the third round of the Masters in April.

"I am extremely disappointed I won't be playing in the US Open [16-19 June]," Woods, 35, stated on his website.

"But it's time for me to listen to my doctors and focus on the future. I was hopeful I could play, but if I did, I risk further damage to my left leg."

The injuries occurred when current world number 15 Woods hit his second shot from under the Eisenhower tree at hole 17 at Augusta.

He consequently missed the Wells Fargo Championship and withdrew after nine holes during the first round at The Players Championship after injuring his leg again on the opening tee shot.

Woods has been dogged by injuries for three years. The American added his 14th and last major to date when he beat Rocco Mediate in a play-off at the 2008 US Open.

Following the epic win, Woods revealed he had been playing for almost a year with a torn ligament in his left knee, and sustained a double stress fracture in his left tibia. Woods had surgery and missed the next eight months, including the Open and PGA Championship of that year.

The Californian then had another lay-off after his serial infidelity became public knowledge in November 2009. The following year, he came fourth in the Masters and US Open before repeating that feat back at Augusta in April.

"It's been a frustrating and difficult year, but I'm committed to my long-term health," Woods added. "I want to thank the fans for their encouragement and support. I am truly grateful and will be back playing when I can."

Yes Harrison, I play golf, started way before "HE" came along, will continue long after. His presence does not affect my game in the slightest.

Think you are missing my point SR. Its not the finishing 4th thats an achievement, its the fact that he was doing what he loves doing best, mixing it in a major. So would he rather have a tour win but miss the cut in a major in exchange, I very much doubt it personally. The only reason he still plays IMO is to win more majors.
And as for a disproportionate ampount of coverage, I wonder how much your beloved Mr Poulter will get despite never having won a strokeplay event in America and having been in shocking form for most of the year ?
Westwood will get vast amounts despite the fact he has never won an event that has included all the best players in the world.
Its easy to pick holes in anybodys games if you choose to. Simply put Woods past record deserves respect and his recent major record is actually excellent by the standards of pretty much anyone else competing so does he deserve attention, of course he does. Does Poulter, not until they start playing a major strokepley event again.

More TV viewers = more sponsorship and participants = more money spent on developing equipment, improving courses and funding youth golf = better and cheaper golf equipment, better courses, more variety of courses at a lower price and better players for the future = better for people that play and better for people that watch.

Or am I to assume that you are hacking around your own private golf course with pre 1997 golf equipment and never watching the game?

super_realist wrote:...There has to be a point where you cut off Woods previous achievements from modern day competitions. Remember he hasn't won a tournament this decade.
What next, whoever won can't really count it because Faldo, Lyle, Ballasteros or Nicklaus weren't in the field so it doesn't mean as much. Live in the present, not the past.

I take the point but TW is hardly as far removed as those others (Lyle BTW? Good, but hardly in the same bracket except for a short period in his career) you list. At least it's plausible that TW could still spreadeagle a field; although not at the US Open this year obviously! Having watched him in R4 at Augusta, there was enough there to suggest it hasn't all gone. Mind you, who knows if that left knee is up to it any more?

Diggers, firstly winning a strokeplay event in America is not a benchmark of achievement. There are many many American golfers who have never done the same on the European tour.

I'm sure you are right that Woods would be happy to be up there in the majors, but he's done it so many times before that I think he'd see a 4th place as something rather hollow despite the positives he could take from it. Surely a win in a large event would have been preferable to instill a winning habit back in his game?

As for Poulter being in shocking form, he's been in considerably better form than Woods has in the last 18 months and has competed more regularly in tournaments on both sides of the atlantic.

Harrison, I'm sorry but your link between sponsorship, tv revenue and equipment development is rubbish.
Every single mainstream sport in the world has undergone a similar rise in prize money, spectators and a corresponding advancement in the technology used to play the game.
The difference is that no other sport makes a claim that this is largely attributed to one man in any of their sports.

Also, how do you think that Woods is responsible for the improvement of Golf Courses? I've never heard anything so absurd. There are lots of golf courses actually going down in standard and with lowering in visitor numbers.
Visitor numbers are restricted by tee times, even if demand increases you can still only get the same amount on.

Poulter clearly set his stall out to make the PGA his tour of choice SR, I suspect it suited his ego to be competing on the major tour as it was when he first went over. If you dont think that he will see it as a huge failure on his part that he hasnt registered a single strokeplay win in the dozens of events he has played over there than all you are proving is that its not just Woods fans who can wear rose tinted glasses. Poulters major record is pitiful in comparison to Woods in the past 12 months and he has never managed a top 10 at the US. He has in fact only ever had a single top 5 finish in a major. Still no doubt you wont compain about the column inches he takes up though the stats all show that he really is a player with next to chance of no winning.

My point about golf courses is that there are more being built to cope with the demand and this then increases the competition meaning that golf courses in general have improved in quality.

I also disagree that all other sports have seen such a rise in revenue as golf over the past 10-15 years. Football aside, there are not many sports that can now create a multimillionaire under the age of 21 and although I am not saying that Tiger is completely responsible for this, he has certainly been the biggest contributor. Other sports have increased their revenue but to nowhere near the extent of golf, which has gone from being a niche sport to a mass participation one. Again, I am not saying this is all Tiger but it has happened during his career and whether it was him or the media and sport using him, he is a big factor.

All other sports have also seen an increase in the prices of their sport as they have seen an increase in revenue whereas golf has become relatively cheaper. This also affects you

Actually Diggers, I don't want to see any golfer get column inches unless they actually merit them.
While Poulter may see it as a disappointment if he doesn't win a tournament he is at least in form, and has a better major record than a lot of players. He was 10th at the Masters last year for instance (hardly pitiful compared to a 4th), but I doubt he's grinning from ear to ear thinking how good it was he was "in the mix" as you put it. He's more likely to be thinking how he could improve on that, as I'm sure Woods was with his two 4th's.
Anyway, this was never intended as a comparison between two players. It was about Woods participation in an event not getting disproportionate coverage given his suspect form.

Harrison,
Cricket, F1, Tennis, Boxing, Rugby and Athletics are all huge paying sports these days, but I don't see any of them putting it down to one person.

Also I have yet to see any evidence that playing golf has become cheaper. Show me some evidence of annual subscriptions going down or green fees reducing.
I have also not seen any evidence of "all other sports becoming more expensive"

I would imagine he was grinning from ear to ear at attaining only his third ever major top ten, one of the others scraping in at ninth. Whatever you or Poulter thinks anyone who actually looks at Poulters major record will see that actually a top 10 is outstanding for him, its shows he's playing his best golf in a major. And I think 3 top 5's compared to one top 10 is a huge gulf but you'd have to take those rosey spectacles off to see the truth there Super.
The object of the post was clearly not to compare the two, Im simply showing that one player who will be there will get a lot of column inches for no other reason than he has a big mouth and stupid trousers. Yet you never write posts about how unjust that is.

super_realist wrote:Harrison,
Cricket, F1, Tennis, Boxing, Rugby and Athletics are all huge paying sports these days, but I don't see any of them putting it down to one person.

Also I have yet to see any evidence that playing golf has become cheaper. Show me some evidence of annual subscriptions going down or green fees reducing.
I have also not seen any evidence of "all other sports becoming more expensive"

Tennis, F1 and boxing were already highly paid sports in the 90's and have not seen a dramatic rise in their revenues. Cricket and Rugby were probably as big as if not bigger than golf 20 years ago but are nowhere near as highly paid as golf now. Athletics is relatively unchanged in terms of participation and wage levels.

A new driver in 1997, like the Callaway Great Big Bertha, retailed at £299 and a good set of irons retailed, like TM bubble, retailed at £599 - £699 depending on shafts. A new driver and set of irons would cost the same if not less now yet wages have kept on going up, so golf equipment is relatively as cheap as it has ever been. Annual subscriptions have also not gone up as quickly as wages or inflation so they are also relatively cheaper and the competition created by golf courses being built due to the increased participation has made green fees relatively stable, which is again cheaper when considering wages and inflation.

As for other sports increasing their prices, a top end cricket bat would be around double what it was, a pair of rugby boots or an actual rugby ball has gone up 30-40%, tennis rackets/balls are also 30-40% more and running shoes/bicycles prices have rocketed all over the same period. Maybe these sports needed a Tiger to bring a higher percentage of revenue to encourage people to play them and increase competition for manufacturers, thus reducing relative prices.

Supposedly TW will be competing at Aronimink later this month. We'll see, and if you are a betting person, I would not bet on it.

I'll leave the "Tiger" affect insights to others, but will state this: Arnold Palmer helped grow the game in the states, Jack Nicklaus helped grow the game in the states and Tiger Woods helped grow the game in the states. Their impact continues even after they stopped competing (hopefully, TW not done yet).

I know for a fact the gate at the AT&T National will be larger if TW is competing and smaller if he were not. I know the Merchandise tents are fuller when he's finished, regardless of what else is happening on the course. No other single golfer today has this impact in the states. But that will change and someone else will step up and dominate -- but perhaps not like Tiger did, more likely closer to what Norman did.

Diggers, this isn't about Poulter, we all know he isn't the player Woods once was. Woods is currently in the biggest slump of his career, and his tournament coverage should reflect this until he gets back into a winning situation. Does a camera follow an aged footballer around the pitch while there is action going on elsewhere? Why do it just because Woods is in the field?

Harrison. Golf prize money was showing a steady and consistent rise long before Woods came along, and has shown no significant spike since his arrival. It's merely the same natural progression which has happened in all sports. This isn't due in total to any one person in any sport, but due in fact to the way in which we consume our sport through the Internet and satellite channels have revolutionalised sport, and would have done so with or without Woods.

Your curious comparison of Callaway clubs from 1997 is also rather strange. Clubs back then were going through a ground breaking period of innovation (pre Woods by the way) and such changes were real novelty items and completely radical. Of course they were going to come at a premium.

It's natural that as companies find better ways to do things the price comes down. It's nothing to do with one celebrity sportsman. Technology has also reached a zenith so increasing prices for what are merely cosmetic upgrades (R11 anyone) could not be carried off without a revolt by the buying public.
For example in computing you could buy what by todays standards would be a fairly rubbish laptop and would cost a grand. Now you can get one 10x as good for one quarter of the price. Are you saying that advancements like that are down to Tiger Woods?
Technological advances also come with a reduction in cost. Remember when CD players or DVD players came out, they cost a fortune to begin with, now they are almost disposable.

Your claim of other sports prices going up are also very odd. Do you really think no one on here does any other sports and can make a good comparison?
I bought 10 years ago what was a very good bike, 10 years later I buy another for the very same price but it's far better with far improved components. Down to Tiger Woods too I expect or simply how technology advances?

In addition to golf I'm also a long distance runner and buy at least two top end pairs of shoes a year. They certainly haven't rocketed as you claim.

Golf goods have always been set at a high price because they've always had a traditionally rich market. Companies like Callaway have nearly gone to the wall in recent years, Yes already have and RIfe putters have followed them and True Temper nearly did. So all these new people in Golf supposedly inspired by Woods, enjoying cheaper, better maintained courses with better but cheaper technology (which is all down to the Woods effect apparently) can't save all these big and small companies struggling can they?
Perhaps not as big an influence on the ordinary golfer as you think.

So where are all these courses that have opened because of Woods? And where are all these courses which are reducing their green fees and memberships because of the extra people Woods has inspired to play? Any which are abolishing joining fees are doing so because golf is already expensive to play and not enough people are joining, that's traditional clubs as well as new ones incidentally, so much for the Woods effect here.
Joining tennis clubs, or athletics clubs or Rugby clubs hasn't gone up by much either.

I have to say I agree with SR regarding the costs of equipment across the board the Woods effect has no standing when it comes to equipment cost at all. For years I have done many different sports, e.g football 10 years ago I bought a brand new pair of adidas predator boots for £120, I can go into a sports store today and buy the new predators for the same price. I've also boxed for years and the equipment is again still comparitively priced now to what it was 15 years ago.

Golf equipment is no different 10-15 years ago golf equipment was undergoing ground breaking developments so prices were compairitve to the amount of R&D going into them, the fact the prices are hardly any different these days is down to the fact heres hardly any manufacturer doing anything to break new ground, but more like there all doing their own variations on the same thing! The only manufacturer impact Woods has had is to help a company like Nike come to the fore but lets be honest the sizze of a company like Nike they could do that with or without Woods anyway becaue theyare such a global brand.

As for fees at clubs the argument that prices are static and household incomes goes up maing it more affordable for all is compete rubbish, our economy has been awful for years, incomes only go up to relfect the increase in the cost of living, so it does not make it more affordable to play golf infact it makes it harder for mosxt, because the amounts of their actual wages that goes on bills and living cost = less disposable income to spend on luxuries such as playing golf andyes it is a luxury because its not something you have to do but want to do. The Woods effect has no bearing at all on people being able to afford club membership purely their amount of spare income does, this combined with many glfers that are having familes now hs seen an increase in the amount of golers walking away (taking a break) from the game/many also suspending memberships with clubs aswhen they have a young child it becomes even harder to justify the costs to play golf compared to clothing and feeding a child, Nothing to do with Tiger

SR and Mav, I am afraid that I cannot agree with either of you that golf equipment is now not relatively cheaper than it was 10-15 years ago. While I was at school I worked in a golf shop and could give you vast array of golf equipment that has not gone up in price or has even gone down in price and my opinion is that it is down to an increase in participation and an increase in R & D. Maybe my example of a Callaway GBB was not great because of it's pioneering implications but there was nothing pioneering about, say, Ping Zing 2 irons that cost more than most today. Again, I am not saying that this all to do with Tiger but he was the pin up boy that was used to increase interest in the game. Did he choose this or not is another debate.

Green fees are relatively cheaper now than 10-15 year ago and when you also add the various discount schemes that were around before the economic slump then it is even cheaper still to play golf. The same applies to annual subscriptions - the argument of less disposable income does not hold because around 2006/7 people had never seen such a high amount of disposable income yet prices in golf did not go up to reflect this. And the costs of having a young family?!? Please, I'm pretty sure there were young families 10-15 years ago that affected disposable income.

I did not comment on boxing prices but boxing has seen a relative slump in revenue over the past 10 years anyway due to a myriad of factors, most notably the lack of characters and too many belts/weights making it uninteresting. With running, yes you can pick up a pair of running shoes for £20-30 at your local discount sports shop but for a proper pair akin to a professional will be a couple of hundred pounds with the correct fitting - this is an increase in a sport that has not seen a relative increase in revenue. And of course you can pick up a bike for £100 down your local Halfords but apart from popping out for a pint of milk it will serve very little purpose - a proper bike is upwards of £1000 and that is not relatively cheaper.

I think that you have both massively overreacted to this and seem to think that Tiger is being lauded as a messiah that has singlehandedly ended starvation, caused world peace and kept the earth rotating. My point is that Tiger has been the pin up boy that golf companies and the media have used to stimulate this interest and revenue to golf. Of course every sport has seen a natural progression as that is the nature of sport but golf has seen a more than normal increase and Tiger has been a big part of that. Before Tiger, a tour pro would have to be relatively successful their whole careers to amass the kind of riches that are now possible in only a couple of years and this is not the case in other sports. Sports like cricket and rugby are better paid but they were bigger sports than golf with comparable earning potential 20 years ago, which is now far from the case.

Tiger came before Nike in golf and whether Nike would have entered the golf market anyway is a moot point. However, like with the media, tour committees, event organisers and most other aspects that have seen increased revenue in the game, Nike used Tiger to get what they wanted. This was not wholly due to Tiger but he has played a big part.

Harrison, Neither Mav or I have claimed that clubs (or any other sporting) aren't cheaper, what we are arguing is that golf is not unique and that no sport has shown an appreciable increase in the cost of it's equipment, and that cheaper equipment isn't as a result of the influence of one man. It's down to technological advances.
In fact if you actually read our posts properly we are saying that you get equipment for pretty much the same price, but for the advancements in technology you are getting better equipment and therefore more for your money. Your ascertion is that golf stuff is cheaper because of Woods, and every other sport is more expensive, but it simply isn't true.

Every single element of life has benefitted from technological improvements which have made things cheaper but of better quality.
I've already given the example of how a laptop 10 years ago was a grand but you can now get one 10x better for a quarter of the price. How do you explain that. Or is Woods a software engineer too?
I also think you are missing my point about bicycles.
I said I bought a good bike a decade ago for a set price (it was £800), but I can get one for the same price now that is far better. Technological improvements make things better but also cheaper. You claim golf is cheaper and claim that all other sports are considerably more expensive - Poppycock
You are also way out on running too. I've bought the same make and model of running shoes for the past ten years, you don't need to spend 200 on a pair as you claim (and you'd be an idiot if you did), in fact even the pro's only use ones which are about 90-120. I have seen no appreciable increase in price over that time, although I have seen an improvement in performance. Hence in relative terms they are cheaper as I am getting more for my money.

Every single participant sport in the world is benefitting from better technology which has either maintained a price, shown a very slight increase or even a decrease in real terms. The improvement in performance is not down to one man in any sport.

I'm sorry, but you just don't seem to understand technology/development, and you clearly don't seem to have a grasp of how it operates in other sports.

Also, top golfers have always been rich, so don't put it down to the Tiger effect.
Tournament prizes have been on a steady increase since day one, there has been no spike, surge or huge increase since Woods came along. Remember that Woods career is also concurrent with the sea change in the consumption of sport on SKY, cable and Internet. Golf (and all other sports) are now accessable to virtually everyone, and all mainstream sports have seen a comparative increase in prize money over that time.
Tennis, Boxing, Football, F1, Athletics, Cycling etc have always had several people at the top and have never claimed that the increase in money is due to one person or group of people. Why should golf be different? It's a sport in exactly the same way as the others.

You say green fees are realitively cheaper with a figure of 10-15 percent that you've plucked out of the air. Relative to what exactly (Pre Woods I expect you mean) Once again, back it up if you wish to gain credibility.
My club fees went up by £20 pounds this year, yet my salary remained the same. That actually makes it more expensive "relatively".

sharrison01 wrote:SR and Mav, I am afraid that I cannot agree with either of you that golf equipment is now not relatively cheaper than it was 10-15 years ago. While I was at school I worked in a golf shop and could give you vast array of golf equipment that has not gone up in price or has even gone down in price and my opinion is that it is down to an increase in participation and an increase in R & D. Maybe my example of a Callaway GBB was not great because of it's pioneering implications but there was nothing pioneering about, say, Ping Zing 2 irons that cost more than most today. Again, I am not saying that this all to do with Tiger but he was the pin up boy that was used to increase interest in the game. Did he choose this or not is another debate.

Green fees are relatively cheaper now than 10-15 year ago and when you also add the various discount schemes that were around before the economic slump then it is even cheaper still to play golf. The same applies to annual subscriptions - the argument of less disposable income does not hold because around 2006/7 people had never seen such a high amount of disposable income yet prices in golf did not go up to reflect this. And the costs of having a young family?!? Please, I'm pretty sure there were young families 10-15 years ago that affected disposable income.

I did not comment on boxing prices but boxing has seen a relative slump in revenue over the past 10 years anyway due to a myriad of factors, most notably the lack of characters and too many belts/weights making it uninteresting. With running, yes you can pick up a pair of running shoes for £20-30 at your local discount sports shop but for a proper pair akin to a professional will be a couple of hundred pounds with the correct fitting - this is an increase in a sport that has not seen a relative increase in revenue. And of course you can pick up a bike for £100 down your local Halfords but apart from popping out for a pint of milk it will serve very little purpose - a proper bike is upwards of £1000 and that is not relatively cheaper.

I think that you have both massively overreacted to this and seem to think that Tiger is being lauded as a messiah that has singlehandedly ended starvation, caused world peace and kept the earth rotating. My point is that Tiger has been the pin up boy that golf companies and the media have used to stimulate this interest and revenue to golf. Of course every sport has seen a natural progression as that is the nature of sport but golf has seen a more than normal increase and Tiger has been a big part of that. Before Tiger, a tour pro would have to be relatively successful their whole careers to amass the kind of riches that are now possible in only a couple of years and this is not the case in other sports. Sports like cricket and rugby are better paid but they were bigger sports than golf with comparable earning potential 20 years ago, which is now far from the case.

Tiger came before Nike in golf and whether Nike would have entered the golf market anyway is a moot point. However, like with the media, tour committees, event organisers and most other aspects that have seen increased revenue in the game, Nike used Tiger to get what they wanted. This was not wholly due to Tiger but he has played a big part.

It appears you've overlooked every point SR and I have actually made I don't recall anywhere in what either of us have written saying it's cheaper! What we've said is that prices are basically the same across all sports but more for you money.

As for saying families have more disposable income what utter garbage! Do you have a family to back up you so called facts..... I do and I can tell you disposable income is far less as your kids grow because they need more for school and for their hobbies and their clothing and feeding them gets dearer..

My example of the adidas boots was a relevant point in that i've always worn those boots and they have got better over the years and i've never paid more for them than I did 10years ago.

As for green fees and club fees, all clubs in my area fees have stadily grown each year for the past 5 or 6 years my own is £375 more a year now than 5 years ago, i'm fortunate enough to be in a situation where this doesn;t have a knock on effect, but have seen many friends walk away from the game to become nomadic players because they do not receive an increase in salary to help them stay in the game.

Steriods in golf. Gary Player famously suggested it was much bigger in golf than anyone knew. The drug testing in golf stepped up about 3 or 4 years ago. Always wondered if stopping steriods would cause the body break down etc. Obviously im not suggesting Tiger would have taken such things...just a point of interest based on players comments a while ago.

Sad that Tiger isnt in the US open. I miss his golf to be frank. Saying that i dont miss the endless TV coverage when he is on the course. nice to see other players getting tv coverage and great how new stars have taken up the challenge etc etc.

I'm pretty sure I have a solid enough grasp on technology/development and how it operates in other sports and find comments to the contrary rather insulting.

I understand your point with computing, athletics and the other sports but let me explain my thinking in a different way. Twenty years ago, for example, for an amateur to buy the golf equipment that is used by a tour professional golfer would cost, say, £1500 (£600 for woods, £600 for irons, £150 for wedges, £150 for a putter) and that is the same cost today. You can obviously buy lesser equipment for less money but lets keep it at the equivalent for the top people using the top brands.

A computer today can be bought for a modest £300 that has a better specification than a £1000 computer 20 years ago. However, they are both at the bottom end of the scale so are akin to buying Donnay golf clubs - they are computers but thats about it. However, if you were to buy a proper PC then you are looking at £5000 and upwards and this is what is used by a professional, so there has been an increase in prices.

Running is rather a niche example because it is not a major sport and has not really seen an increase in relative revenues. However, my point about £200 running shoes, whether they are to your liking or not, is that they are the top end and show an increase in prices due to the technology involved. Golf has not.

Cycling is similar to running but again shows an increase at the top end for bicycles and a decrease at the bottom end because of cheaper bikes using technology from a couple of years ago. Golf is not the same.

Even top end football boots are more expensive and this is probably the fastest growing sport in terms of revenue. £120 would have bought you the adidas predators when they were technologically better than everything else but it is easy to pay £150 upwards to copy a premier league player and even around £90 for an actual ball. Both have had technological input, both are more expensive. Unlike golf.

Top golfers were of course rich but that took them time during their careers. Could the likes of Faldo or Seve, who were very successful at a very young age, retire at the age of 21 after a couple of years on tour. Of course not, and there are very few sports that can claim the average professional participant as being wealthy enough to retire. This was not the case before Tiger.

Those other sports that have had players at the top of their game are also very different as it would be very hard to imagine any of them creating a $billion sportsman like Tiger. Even the rest of the tour credit Tiger with increasing funds to the game but whether you like him or not, it has happened.

As for you quoting me stating a 10-15% increase in green fees then I urge you to re-read my post and maybe keep your suggestions on how I have read things to yourself. It is easy to quote your club increasing by £20 this year during a time when wages are flat and relatively dropping. Inflation is currently around the 5% mark so unless your annual subs are below £400 then this is a relative decrease in prices. It is foolish to point to quite unique economic conditions as we have seen the past 3-4 years so maybe it would be easier to check your subs against wages between 1997-2007.

For green fees, I can only quote what is local to me. There are 4 pay and plays that were £20-25 per round 10 years ago and are now £22-27 per round, 4 private clubs that were £40-50 per round 10 years ago and are now £50-60 per round and 2 courses that have held tour events and gone from £90 to £120 because of their demand. This has been during a period of economic boom that again appears not to have affected golf as much as most other things.

I will repeat again, I do not believe that Tiger caused all of this to happen but he has been big factor and I also believe that it has been the case that Tiger has been used to accelerate this growth rather than actually stimulate this. There is a reason that he has managed to earn almost $1b from a sport that was no bigger than boxing, tennis, rugby, cricket, football etc and it was not just down to television revenues and increased media streams.

i think it's fair to suggest that it's about time you two "got a room"...

Ultimately for me I just find it rather sad that anyone who professes to love a sport would be pleased when one of its finest ever exponents is injured and therefore cannot play.
There are quite a few players competing who Im not fond of watching and many more who I dont really have any interest in watching but thats all part of the event, I would never wish that any sportsman misses out through injury. I might want them to lose, I might want them not to qualify for the event in the first place but that is entirely different to being glad that they are injured.

Interesting theory OTA. 2+2 is definitely adding up to something between 4 and 5 there, I'd love to know which.

Just on the whole cost of golf thing, in the late 80s the R&A produced a report saying that the UK needed 700 more golf courses to meet the anticipated rise in demand. This generated a veritable boom in course building, certainly in the south east, and so by the laws of supply and demand, membership and green fees are lower now than they were, relatively speaking. Most of those courses were opened in the 5 years prior to Woods turning pro. Quite what impact that higher demand has had on equipment cost I don't know, but I'm sure it won't have made it more expensive.

Mav, why would feeding them, clothing them and paying for their hobbies as they grow cost any more on a relative sense than 20 years ago?!? I'm pretty sure that the sweatshops in China are still working overtime to keep clothing prices down, food prices have done relatively little in a real sense and hobbies are a choice that has always been made. I also very much remember my parents having less disposable income than most young families but then maybe that is to do with lifestyle choices and trends which are very different.

Your point on Adidas boots is not overly relevant because football has seen a bigger revenue growth then golf in that period so they should not have gone up in price and should be relatively cheaper, like golf equipment.

Your point on your subs is rather specific and I also live in the SE so have a good grasp on subs and green fees in that area. 20 years ago, the choice was to pay a fortune to be a member of a private club or play around a cows field of a pay and play. The increase in competition for golf courses due to the popularity of golf has given your friends the prerogative to be able to walk away whilst still enjoying the game because competitions aside, there is little financial difference in being a member and a nomadic golfer, assuming that your golf fits in around work and a family as oppose to playing every day in retirement.

SmithersJones wrote:Interesting theory OTA. 2+2 is definitely adding up to something between 4 and 5 there, I'd love to know which.

Depends how you look at it - it's exactly 4 for a mathematician, around 4 for an economist and if you're an accountant then it can be any figure you want

Diggers wrote:Ultimately for me I just find it rather sad that anyone who professes to love a sport would be pleased when one of its finest ever exponents is injured and therefore cannot play.

Well said Diggers - and welcome. Glad you changed your mind

More relevant than 20years please! Only someone without a family can make such a call! It becomes more relevant each year for parents because as you kids grow so does the costs associated with them regardless of the sweat shops as you put it because they still need to be fed and clothed

I can see where your coming from Harrison but I do not agree. As for saying we should base comparisons on other years is ridiculous and pointless because we are not living in the past we live here in the present and it here in the present that we earn our money and have to base our outgoings on.

Personally I think this has been done to the death because frankly its a matter of opinion and this thread after all is meant to be about Woods not participating in a major so how about we get back on thread for a change

Cheers Davie, its difficult to exist without a fix of some golf chat.

I recognise that during the worst economic times for almost a century and the government's interesting austerity measures that my point has less strength than it might have done 3-4 years ago and am more than happy to agree to disagree...

Good heavens Harrison, you still aren't getting it.

There probably weren't many sports where you could retire by the age of 21 before the 1990's apart from boxing.

Now virtually every sport if you are a top exponent you could retire by then. Certainly in Football, F1.

You could easily pay a few thousand pounds for a set of Golf clubs, eg Miura or Scratch so are those not considerably more expensive than 10 years ago?
You can spend loads and loads in every sport if you really want to, but for standard equipment which the vast majority of people use there has been no appreciable increase in the price accross any sport, although there has been an increase technological advancement.
However all sports equipment costs have remained at roughly the same level but with a corresponsing increase in technology and what you get for your money.

A 1997 set of clubs will be less forgiving than the corresponding 2011 club but with no appreciable increase in price.
Similarly a 1997 tennis racket will be heavier, less forgiving and made of less advanced materials than the 2011 version. Yous still pay virtually the same. The prices have not skyrocketed in any sport.
Technology allows prices to remain the same or similar but to produce better items. Why can't you see this?

Your comparison of modern day computers is also flawed. 16 years ago, or pre Woods if you prefer a top end computer of the kind you refer would probably has cost as much as a BMW 5 series, now a top end computer far cheaper and more technologically advanced.
It doesn't matter what level you look at all levels of equipment are both better in terms of quality/functionality and therefore better value for money across all sports.

Golf is no different than any other sport in terms of the price of it's equipment and the technological advancements.

A good set of clubs since 1996 has always been £500-£600 as it is today.

A good tennis racket since 1996 has always been about £120 as it is today.

A good anything is pretty much the same cost as it was 16BW.

You get more value for money these days but you still pay roughly the same in ALL sports.

Running a niche sport? Get off your couch man, it's one of the biggest participant sports in the entire country. I guarantee they sell more running shoes a year (and always have done) than golf shoes, yet across all levels of shoe from the cheap to the expensive the cost has remained broadly stable.

SR, I'm getting very bored with this and think that this debate has run it's course. I very much understand and appreciate your point of view despite your lack of respecting that and I'd rather just agree to disagree...

Or you have realised that your proclamation that Golf is relatively cheaper than it was 15 years ago and that every other sport is more expensive is absolute cobblers?

I think Mav had the best idea...

This is actually quite an interesting ecomomics debate. Moore's law is evidently something sharrison's not familiar with. £5k for a PC? They saw you coming! I'd be loathe to pay more than £800 for a new pc and monitors, anything more than that and you're buying AV equipment rather than a computer (I'm an IT professional, btw).

World food prices have soared in the last few years (various reasons, global warming, bio fuel etc), as have fuel prices, the latter having an inflationary impact on just about everything else. In light of this, and given that there has been inflation of around 2-3% over the period in question, the fact that any sporting goods are similarly priced means they're all in real terms much, much cheaper.

SR, I'm afraid that I'm not going to be drawn back into this with your playground tactics. I'm happy to agree to disagree and if that's not good enough for you then I think that you might need to stand back and give yourself a once over.

Smithers, I have a very sound economic understanding and for you to belittle this puts you very much in the same camp as SR with his lack of respect. If you are an IT professional, and assuming that means you don't spend half your life on your knees changing wires, then you would surely comprehend spending a few thousands on a PC - mine's for work in the financial sector but a whole host of other professions would require a higher spec PC. £800 got me my monitors...

Harrison, I'm happy to agree to disagree and then agree that I'm right and you're wrong.


Looks like your IT supplier saw you coming or that your procurement officer is creaming off a nice profit.

The financial sector does not require particularly sophistocated computers so spending a few thousand on one for your use is utterly superfluous, but perhaps thats more the lavish nature of finance in the financial sector than being realistic in terms of your actual requirements.

Regardless of that, computers are now comparitively cheaper than they were 20 years ago.
You can physically spend more of course, but a similarly specced unit, bottom or top end will cost you a lot less now than it would back in Pre Woods days. I'm surprised a man working in finance can't understand that.

Trying to pigeonhole a maximum price for a pc is just plain daft. Its like saying you can buy a new car for £6k, well of course you can but its will not be the best or indeed the only option available. I probably purchase 100 PC's a year and will spend anything between 300 quid and 2500 quid depending on what they are going to be used for.

My dad's bigger than your dad...

I don't feel that you are holding yourself with any dignity now SR by continuing this.

Suggesting that I was ripped off, did not get the correct requirements or do not understand your very simplistic economics is just further displays of your inability to hold a sensible debate.

And you evidently have little very grasp of the financial sector...

Precisely Diggers, which is why I said that the Financial sector doesn't require computers costing several thousand pounds for individual users.

Harrison, it wasn't me who said that every sport was getting more expensive but golf was getting cheaper, all because of the influence of one man was it?

That doesn't sound like a sensible point to debate does it?Especially when it is so easy to disprove.

I'm pretty sure that I did not put it all down to one man but then selective reading is fine for some.

The financial sector is more than dishing out old ladies some cash from their savings book. Even a great economic mind like yours must be able to comprehend that.

Guys without trying to sound like the MOD Squad, can we get back on topic as this really is going into a tangent or if it's run it's course I'll lock this one out as all that seems to be happening here is a bit of a who's got the blackest cat argument

Of course Harrison, large corporations spend the money where it matters, i.e on servers and networks, not over specced computers running fairly low requirement software. Several thousand pounds for any desktop computer is way too much unless you are working with seriously process intensive data such as multi spectral or remotely sensed data.


On the other hand, it's also easily to overlook tongue in cheek comments that i make, I'm sure you really didn't mean to say that every other sports equipment has increased in price except for golf.

Fair enough Mav,

I'm glad that the teacher has made you see sense...

Back to topic, regardless of form, Tiger Woods is a welcome addition to all of the majors at the moment and although he may not be as competitive as he was a few years ago, he still brings a lot. I do not think that it is any longer the case that a Tiger-less field devalues the winners' achievements in any way but Tiger in the field adds value.

Is that strictly true though Harrison, does anyone who is dining out on past achievements bring anything to a tournament if their form is seriously in question, morbid curiosity aside.
The English football team have constructed their whole selection policy on precisely this basis, and they are an international joke.
Having a tournament consiting of a sentimental field seems to be heading for Pro-Am status.
I'm not saying Woods can't win again, I'm sure he will, but at the moment no one is missing out by him not being present.

I think that Woods is treading on a fine line with that at the moment. His last five majors have resulted in three fourth place finishes and two top 30 finishes - hardly outstanding given his previous form but still far more admirable than most. It's a very difficult call because, for example, if Tiger were not included now on the basis of his recent form then Nicklaus should also not have been allowed to play the '86 Masters given his form going into it yet look at how exciting that was for the spectator.

I think there the major fields are balanced just fine the way that they are and are great for golf fans and the players alike. They are one of the very few occasions that we get to see the current top players in the world with the previous top players and the next crop of top players and as a golf fan you cannot really ask for more.

Harrison

Some people like Tiger, others do not and will not no matter how many stats you quote or how many times you write it. Get over it.

I also think if you're going to keep bandying about figures of prices and trends you should provide some links or some sort of proof or it's pretty meaningless.

Really Baggers?!?! Just come to join the party have we - I think that you'll find if you look back I have neither displayed a like or dislike for Tiger and I am very much aware that people have differing opinions on him.

I'm also pretty sure that the time for stats and figures is over. Everybody is pretty bored with the continuing disagreement on the topic of golf in relation to economics and you may have gathered that this subject has been moved on from.

I think that you will also find that this thread is actually about Tiger, as quoted in the title, so if you are not interested in engaging in or viewing a debate with regards to him, I would avoid such threads.

I see that you are new to this forum so maybe you should acquaint yourself with how they work and how to follow a debate. Your comments provide nothing of any use...

super_realist wrote:Is that strictly true though Harrison, does anyone who is dining out on past achievements bring anything to a tournament if their form is seriously in question, morbid curiosity aside.
The English football team have constructed their whole selection policy on precisely this basis, and they are an international joke.
Having a tournament consiting of a sentimental field seems to be heading for Pro-Am status.
I'm not saying Woods can't win again, I'm sure he will, but at the moment no one is missing out by him not being present.

Does that mean that everyone that hasn't played at their best or won the last tournament is part of a 'sentimental field'? I miss him because I like watching him play golf, warts an all.

There's a few 'international jokes' out there but that doesn't stop them playing in the next competition because they are likely to better than some other 'international jokes'!!

Yadsendew, I understand what you are saying but I think that SR was pointing more towards those on the senior tour that have little chance of making the cut. It is a difficult call but the way that Norman and Watson have entertained us in recent Opens must make it worth keeping it the way that it is.

I do not think that Tiger is anywhere near this yet and the fact is that regardless of him being a past winner, he has qualified like anyone else under the regulations of qualifying.

It is actions like Sandy Lyle's a couple of years back when he pulled out because he was playing poorly that give credence to the other argument. Maybe they should have a "quiet word committee" that pulls ageing golfers aside when they are a burden and mentions the idea of this year being their last. Actually, that might work with the aged outside of golf