Take a mulligan: PGA, where are the young guns?
After watching a fantastic finish at the LPGA Kraft Nabisco, followed by a rather ho-hum final round at The Masters, I'm rather amazed how few "young guns" there are who can compete at the majors on the PGA tour. The LPGA, of course, has many: Michelle Wie, Natalie Gulbis, Lorena Ochoa, Paula Creamer, Morgan Pressel, to name a few. The PGA has, well, a major problem.
Just look down the list of the 47 final round players at The Masters. Only 1 golfer who's still in his twenties finished in the Top 25 -- Geoff Ogilvy, and he'll be 29 years old this year. Of the 47 players who made the cut at The Masters, only 6 (Ogilvy, Adam Scott, Carl Petterson, Ben Curtis, Luke Donald, Sergio Garcia) are still in their twenties and none is under 25 years old. Adam Scott will be turning 26 this year, and he's the youngest. Of the 6 players, 3 are already or will be 29 years old this year. Only 1 -- Ben Curtis -- has won a major.
So what does this mean? Well, if I were Tiger or Phil, I would be licking my chops. But, if I were the PGA, I would be worried. Michell Wie = 16 years old, need I say more.
10 Comments:
Michelle Wie = 16 years old...so what? She plays on the LPGA Tour. The PGA Tour may lack "young guns" who are winning consistently but think about what that means. It means that the talent pool on the Tour is incredibly deep. There are talented players of all ages and from all over the world competing and winning on the Tour. Rather than wonder why there are no hugely successful players on the Tour, ask why it is that older players never win on the LPGA Tour. Are you worried that the LPGA lacks some "older guns" or, more appropriately, ask yourself whether Michelle Wie has ever won ANYTHING. The answer is, of course, that she's yet to prove herself.
Look, I think Wie is going to be an exceptional player, but she's all hype right now. And for anyone to suggest that she and the other young players on the LPGA can somehow challenge the dominance of the PGA Tour or that it is more exciting to watch the LPGA is definitely dilusional.
As for the Masters, I think the final round's lack of excitement was due more to the setup of the course than any lack of young players. The course was exceptionally difficult. End of story. And is a tournament or a tour only exciting when there are young players? Is not the greatest Masters, and possibly the greatest major in recent memory, the 1986 Masters, won by none other than the oldest champion of all time?
Um, most of the kids don't get to play the Masters - too many spots go to past champions and that sort of thing so they don't really get much of a chance. Let's see what happens at the next major and then we can talk
WHILE WATCHING THE NABISCO CHAMPIONSHIPS I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO THROW UP! THE ONLY PLAYER THE ANNOUNCERS WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS MICHELLE WIE! IT WAS AS THO SHE WAS PAYING THEM! STOP THE HYPE! THERE ARE MANY YOUNG PLAYERS THAT DESERVE THE AIR TIME TOO. NEXT THING YOU KNOW, THEY WILL HAVE JIM NANCE ANNOUNCING AND I WILL DEFFINATELY THROW UP!
Young Tom Morris, "She plays on the LPGA Tour." That's exactly my point. She's on the LPGA tour, not PGA tour, but her star power is already so great at 16 years old (see 2nd anonymous comment below).
In terms of a pure TV ratings and marketing standpoint, who in the pipeline of "young guns" can the PGA turn to next? Matt Kuchar?
MW isn't the only player that gets 'hype'. If I hear one more time about how 'competitive' Morgan Pressel is, how her mother died recently and her grandpa's tennis connections I'm going to puke.
The evil hype you speak of is an organic part of a commercialized professional sport. Getting upset about this is the logical equivalent of riding around on a sailboat and complaining about all of that annoying wind.
People complain that MW hasn't won much and that she should go somewhere and 'learn to win'. What should be obvious is that she has decided to do that learning on the LPGA tour and not in the Honolulu Amateur. Given her seemingly automatic top 5 finishes in majors against the strongest fields, I tend to think the hype is justified. From a marketing point of view, the hype is definitely justified. In pro golf, all money flows from that marketing. It's the hype that pays all the bills!
I know that if I could have a sex change, go back in time to 18 years of age and get an LPGA tour card, I'd take MW's game over any of the other players, Annika included.
"I know that if I could have a sex change, go back in time to 18 years of age and get an LPGA tour card..."
Just curious, is that a Freudian slip?
Not a slip, just a dream of mine...
Men in tour golf don't usually contend for majors before age 30. Nicklaus and Woods are the exception. Hogan didn't win majors in in his 20's. Neither did Mickelson.
What the PGA tour doesn't seem to have are players in their 20's who look like they'll contend in the majors in his 30's, and that's the problem.
I disagree completely that the Tour doesn't have guys in their 20s who will contend in their 30s for majors. Adam Scott is going to be a force and so will Luke Donald and Justin Rose. I think the question might be, where are the young Americans, but there are plenty of young foreign players who are ready to contend. But I also think there are plenty of young Americans who will contend...Sean O'Hair, Aaron Oberholser, Ben Crane, and JB Holmes. There are lots of good players. Unlike the LPGA, the PGA Tour is deep with talent. It's difficult to win out there.
Prodigies are interesting. Part of the fun of sports is watching a young player or a team with great potential develop into stardom. It's especially fun when the promise of stardom is in a young player. It is satisfying to watch them realize their potential. Wie is in that category. Woods, Jordan, Bird, Vick are other examples. The fact that Wie has yet to prove herself is the basis of her appeal.
Post a Comment
<< Home