i'm sure the tiger-haters feel he's being misrepresented by the fans and the media.

Ms M:

I don't imagine any athlete is actually a powerful figure in sports, because the athlete is only the tool by which money is made.  The people who are able to create venues, gather sponsors and maintain this system are the "most powerful people" in sports.  An athlete only plays the sport - quarterback, shortstop, center, etc. - but the system that creates the money is the overall organization and those who sponsor that organization.

For example, TW hits a phenomenal ball, but would anybody care if there was no PGA for him to display his talent?  Nike creates shoes and other sports equipment and uses athletes to promote their venture - the athletes themselves don't create these shoes, the outlets for sales, the distribution centers, etc.  If it's not one athlete it's the other.  Of course Nike's golf equipment sales have skyrocketed due to TW promotion, however it's not TW who makes the equipment and if say Nike wants to get outta the business and sell to an offshore company TW has no say in that what so ever. 

it sounds like the chicken or the egg argument. did the athlete create the need for the organization and equipment, or did the organization and equipment create the need for the athlete? i would have to say the former. there are as many athletes on the list as non-athletes, their power is derived from their ability to play their respective sport. in tiger's case, the argument has been made if he was using old equipment, would he still be the golfer he is. put him in any era and imo he would be just as dominant. the athlete demands the spectacle just as much as the spectacle demands the athlete. one can't exist without the other. the list is very representative of that.

I kinda don't like it when I see "most powerful person" and "sports" put anywhere near each other. I grew up when people involved with sports really didn't have that much "power," whether athletes or corporate executives. They sort of had power, influence over certain things but nowhere near the kind of power they have now. I guess as sports grew and large amounts of money got involved, things changed. Can't really blame the people involved in sports. I think it's more of society's fault. Put entertainment over meaningful things. That's really what it is, isn't it? The Masters, U.S. Open they're just forms of entertainment, not really matters of life or death although it might seem like it at the time. Not to show a grim outlook on things, just my opinion.

Tiger fan Dan:

I didn't say being named the most powerful, I said the most powerful person would have a lot of influence. The fact that he was named the most powerful person doesn't give him anything, I never said it did. The fact that Tiger was named at the top does show that he must have a fair bit of influence though, they must have based their placements on something.

Hey, maybe you meant something different, I'm down with that.  But it is was you said.

Tiger fan Dan:

I would imagine that being the most powerful person in sports certainly gives someone quite a lot of influence.

I'm not disagreeing with the list either.  Any of the Top Three could be number one and they certainly are the most powerful in American sport... but it still doesn't mean much... well, anything at all.

---

Ms M:

I don't imagine any athlete is actually a powerful figure in sports, because the athlete is only the tool by which money is made.  The people who are able to create venues, gather sponsors and maintain this system are the "most powerful people" in sports.  An athlete only plays the sport - quarterback, shortstop, center, etc. - but the system that creates the money is the overall organization and those who sponsor that organization.

For example, TW hits a phenomenal ball, but would anybody care if there was no PGA for him to display his talent?  Nike creates shoes and other sports equipment and uses athletes to promote their venture - the athletes themselves don't create these shoes, the outlets for sales, the distribution centers, etc.  If it's not one athlete it's the other.  Of course Nike's golf equipment sales have skyrocketed due to TW promotion, however it's not TW who makes the equipment and if say Nike wants to get outta the business and sell to an offshore company TW has no say in that what so ever. 

All excellent points.

On a somewhat related note:  Why is Eldrick so powerful because he hits a golf ball really well?  I mean honestly, if he spoke out about the election, people would listen and vote the way he said to.  Why on earth?  Because he's a good golfer?  Yikes.

---

scrappy1:

I think some people dislike Tiger because he's dominant and he's the #1 player in the world (well earned)...and has been for a long time now.  And some have a problem with that because we live in a society where some believe that no matter how hard a person works....and how much they earn/deserve what they get...the reward system/status should be based on taking turns.

Or could it possibly be that many of the "haters" are just more realistic about Eldrick than many of the "lovers?"   <sarcasm>Of course not, it couldn't be.</sarcasm>

---

LeonardWoods:

On a somewhat related note:  Why is Eldrick so powerful because he hits a golf ball really well?  I mean honestly, if he spoke out about the election, people would listen and vote the way he said to.  Why on earth?  Because he's a good golfer?  Yikes.

you just answered your own question.

LeonardWoods:

Or could it possibly be that many of the "haters" are just more realistic about Eldrick than many of the "lovers?"   <sarcasm>Of course not, it couldn't be.</sarcasm>

realism is in the eye of the beholder.

twitb71:

it sounds like the chicken or the egg argument. did the athlete create the need for the organization and equipment, or did the organization and equipment create the need for the athlete? i would have to say the former. there are as many athletes on the list as non-athletes, their power is derived from their ability to play their respective sport. in tiger's case, the argument has been made if he was using old equipment, would he still be the golfer he is. put him in any era and imo he would be just as dominant. the athlete demands the spectacle just as much as the spectacle demands the athlete. one can't exist without the other. the list is very representative of that.

I believe some enterprising folk decided to make money off of sports, because people have just as much passion for their local high school in many communities as we have, say for the Browns here in Cleveland.  I use to live in a small town outside St. Louis and the basketball championship was sold out every night, because everyone loved the Normandy HS Boys Basketball team.  I remember getting caught up in it and I wasn't even from the community originally.  In fact, many old school folk say, why in the world would you pay so much money to people who do something they do at the local high school where folk enjoy it just as much.  Golf was not always a money making venue, as the USGA was the biggest event for years, which of course is amateur.  Some one or persons decided to put together a functional professional tour, create the venues and gather sponsorship.  So....I think folk figured out how to make money off something people get passionate about anyway.  Because there is money involved, people learn how to make even more and things get bigger and bigger.  It's also a shame how the sports that have been pushed the hardest are those for which only men play - football, baseball, etc.  Basketball has a women's league, but it was just created and is nowhere near as popular.  Tennis is about the only professional sport where women consistently are as or more popular than men.

---

Ms. M.
Always Ready For Golf!!!

Ms M:

I believe some enterprising folk decided to make money off of sports, because people have just as much passion for their local high school in many communities as we have, say for the Browns here in Cleveland.  I use to live in a small town outside St. Louis and the basketball championship was sold out every night, because everyone loved the Normandy HS Boys Basketball team.  I remember getting caught up in it and I wasn't even from the community originally.  In fact, many old school folk say, why in the world would you pay so much money to people who do something they do at the local high school where folk enjoy it just as much.  Golf was not always a money making venue, as the USGA was the biggest event for years, which of course is amateur.  Some one or persons decided to put together a functional professional tour, create the venues and gather sponsorship.  So....I think folk figured out how to make money off something people get passionate about anyway.  Because there is money involved, people learn how to make even more and things get bigger and bigger.  It's also a shame how the sports that have been pushed the hardest are those for which only men play - football, baseball, etc.  Basketball has a women's league, but it was just created and is nowhere near as popular.  Tennis is about the only professional sport where women consistently are as or more popular than men.

more money builds in a vested interest where there may not be one. more money also assumes a higher level of talent. the drawback is there is no guarantee that more money will bring those results. the tiger fans in 2008 can attest to that. i didn't know when i made plans to attend several tournaments this year that tiger was going to be out of action. that's the risk you take as a fan. the higher the expectation, the higher the letdown when that expectation is not met. you almost have to treat the athlete, and the underlying sport, as an investment, a going concern. the return is the level of enjoyment and knowledge gained. at the professional level you get more of an appreciation of that, where the athletes spend the most time at their chosen sport.  

twitb71:

you just answered your own question.

No, I never answered any questions, only asked them.  If people want to think Neo will change the world because he plays golf really well, they need to check themselves.  If he said he was voting Obama or McCain, many would follow him, and why?  Does he know more than the average voter?  Is he some great political mind that we should all listen to?  No and no.  He's just another guy with a vote just like the rest of Americans (who are of voting age) who happens to hit a golf ball well.  Nothing more, nothing less.

twitb71:

realism is in the eye of the beholder.

That's beauty, nice try though.

---

LeonardWoods:

No, I never answered any questions, only asked them.  If people want to think Neo will change the world because he plays golf really well, they need to check themselves.  If he said he was voting Obama or McCain, many would follow him, and why?  Does he know more than the average voter?  Is he some great political mind that we should all listen to?  No and no.  He's just another guy with a vote just like the rest of Americans (who are of voting age) who happens to hit a golf ball well.  Nothing more, nothing less.

you may be right, but the fact is, people do think that highly of tiger. again you have to look at the whole picture, with his corporate tie-ins and his connections. there are political implications.

LeonardWoods:

That's beauty, nice try though.

the point i was trying to make is that both the tiger-haters and tiger-lovers feel they are realistic in their assessments.  

twitb71:

you may be right, but the fact is, people do think that highly of tiger. again you have to look at the whole picture, with his corporate tie-ins and his connections. there are political implications.

the point i was trying to make is that both the tiger-haters and tiger-lovers feel they are realistic in their assessments.

1. But they shouldn't, and that's the point.  He knows no more than anyone here about politics or anything as such.

2. Both extremes have be known to be unrealistic in their  assessments, doesn't make it realistic.

---

LeonardWoods:

  He knows no more than anyone here about politics or anything as such.

 

oh how true............

Concerning Tiger's Punta Brava Course Design project.  Talk about the Tiger factor...Tiger power...

 

He has designed a golf course on a spectacular piece of land along the Pacific Ocean, just south of Ensenada and about 70 miles south of San Diego. It is called Punta Brava (Wild Point), and is a $100-million project financed by entrepreneur and former NFL and NBA owner Red McCombs.

McCombs, in attendance, said, "When this was brought to me, I wasn't especially turned on. Then, they told me there was a good chance that Tiger would be involved. I said, forget it. It's over. I'm in."

 

 

---

TW - The leading cause of goose bumps…