Uncle Si":224b9uki said:
Preface this with: I don't watch golf that much anymore. So more of an inquiry than a snarky comment, but Why is it "good for the game?"
Don't understand that. 10 years ago Tiger was good for the game. Tiger was the game. he'll never be that again.
Personal issues aside, Tiger has been surpassed by a bevy of young, talented and exciting golfers. Not sure how Tiger even fits in. Even if he stays healthy and starts hitting it well, he's never going to be the Tiger from his late 20s. Healthy, he won't be any better for the game than Mickelson.
We don't know for sure yet that he has been surpassed when healthy. I think his head is done, shot, but there's no way to say that with any certainty. To say he isn't better for the game than Mickelson is absolutely absurd. There will be moments when Tiger gets hot. And when Tiger gets hot, there isn't anything like it. He probably won't get hot nearly as frequently s before, but there will be moments. Tiger made playing golf look really cool. Phil made playing golf look really, really dorky. Put Tiger in contention once, just once, and tell me it is the same as when Phil is in contention.
It is good for the game to watch a player who at his prime was the best golfer of all time, and cool, have moments. How would it possibly not be good for the game? Ratings are way down. Golf rounds and equipment sales are way down. All the manufacturers are losing money. One major championship victory can and will have a ridiculous impact on all of that.