I thought about putting this in the PGA thread, but thought that it might derail the discussion there.
As intro, let me say that I am a knowledgeable and life-long golf fan, so I am not asking this from an uninformed perspective.
But today Geno Auriemma, in responding to the criticism levied by "our own" CHB (who called UCONN's runaway wins "bad" for women's collegiate basketball), responded by asking rhetorically if a similar reaction was noted when Tiger was winning so dominantly in his prime? Geno suggested that, no, it is not bad for the sport, but [paraphrasing] such dominance motivates competitors to improve their game and challenge if they can.
I know there are all sorts of anecdotal stories out there about Tiger's effect on the game, but I'd be interested in hearing what others think his influence had - directly. Has it made THAT much of a difference on what we are seeing with the likes of Spieth, Day, McElroy, et. all. Or is it just a general evolution?
As intro, let me say that I am a knowledgeable and life-long golf fan, so I am not asking this from an uninformed perspective.
But today Geno Auriemma, in responding to the criticism levied by "our own" CHB (who called UCONN's runaway wins "bad" for women's collegiate basketball), responded by asking rhetorically if a similar reaction was noted when Tiger was winning so dominantly in his prime? Geno suggested that, no, it is not bad for the sport, but [paraphrasing] such dominance motivates competitors to improve their game and challenge if they can.
I know there are all sorts of anecdotal stories out there about Tiger's effect on the game, but I'd be interested in hearing what others think his influence had - directly. Has it made THAT much of a difference on what we are seeing with the likes of Spieth, Day, McElroy, et. all. Or is it just a general evolution?
Last edited: