08-14-2017, 03:30 PM
(08-13-2017, 10:54 PM)vataha link Wrote:"He seemed to place a lot of emphasis on on the impact to society part of the ratings." If that is the basis for consideration and ultimately inclusion then Tiger warrants serious consideration. Personal flaws and demons aside, Tiger was a recent revelation much in the same way Arnold Palmer was in his time. Tiger captured notice and interest for many of us who were peripheral golf fans. I checked into the majors as well as the tournaments played on idyllic courses. Tiger made me tune into EVERY tournament he played, even if I left the TV on and went out to do yard work for a half hour or so. I came back in to watch HIM. Interest in golf spiked astronomically directly due to him. New bedroom (no pun intended) communities built around golf courses were erected (no pun intended) because of the Tiger phenomenon. ( See communities in Brentwood, Contra Costa, Co.) These communities are now taking three golf courses and paring down to one! The Tiger affect is now fools gold and tumbleweeds. Nike has bailed from the golf game and that is due to one mans' star having risen then shot its load. I think Tiger epitomizes impact on society AND economics.
I think that's a good, if polyannaish take; by virtue of Tiger being Tiger he did transform the image of African Americans and golf. Pre-Tiger, golf was viewed as a White man's game; Tiger smashed that stereotype. On the other hand, Tiger never (to my knowledge) leveraged his celebrity status in the pursuit of furthering broader social change, which I think is what the "impact on society" was getting at.
BC