Why hasn't Federer done for tennis what Tiger has done for golf?
- Thread starter DRII
- Start date
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Tiger changed golf internationally. The first billion dollar athlete is one with more than major exsposure just in America.
Come on. So you two are saying only an American athlete can be transformational for any given sport! Thats just not true.
I often wonder are such statements made out of insecurity or hubris...
Come on. So you two are saying only an American athlete can be transformational for any given sport! Thats just not true.
I often wonder are such statements made out of insecurity or hubris...
babbette
Legend
why do you think Roger hasn't done for Tennis what Tiger has done for golf?
Outbeyond
Legend
We like to alternate between the two. :shock:
My guess on this matter is that golf is simply a more popular sport worldwide than tennis, if you're comparing the two. I'm prepared to be shown the door for this assessment, but that's just my guess!
Americans are more pervasive of world culture than the Swiss. Also, perhaps because golf is more of a popular sport than tennis.
(And anyway. We are talking about Tiger. I presume most people on this forum are from the USA. I'm not, I'm from the UK, but they have similar celebrities etc. Perhaps in Switzerland, Federer has completely revolutionised tennis. We can only see things from our point of view.)
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Uhm, i asked the question, LOL!
Perhaps he lacks chirisma, looks, flair, attitude, or that something 'different'.
Not that Tiger is all that good looking or exciting (at least we didn't know just how exciting he was).
But he was 'racially' different, and came to dominate his sport. His stroy fits a certain narative.
I guess Federers does not fit a preconcieved narative.
I don't know, but it is a weakness on Federer's part. I know its nit-picking to say that but i believe it to be true.
i also don't think that golf was always more popular than tennis.
circusmouse
Rookie
Tennis has been growing in popularity in the last several years in the US (as evidenced by racquet sales, ball sales, the difficulty of getting courts), so how do we know Roger hasn't been part of that? Also, tennis requires actual exercise, so that's obviously going to limit its universal appeal, unlike golf, which even the lazy can play.
charliefedererer
Legend
Money talks.
Golf is much more business oriented than tennis.
You can lose a golf match to a client while talking him up, have a few drinks, and close the deal all in one day.
And you don't even have to break a sweat.
How is tennis going to compete with a game like that for corporate sponsorships?
Why would they promote a non-golf corporate spokesman?
Even the game of tennis can not support its "heroes" the way golf can, with it's club memberships, green's fees, weekly tournament crowds, TV money, and equipment sales dwarfing tennis's earning capacity.
And...
(I can't emphasize this enough.)
You don't have to sweat to play golf.
(Plus you get to drive around in those fun little cars, bet and double down on each hole, and have those drinks at the 19th hole.)
How can you match the appeal of a game like that?
Federer doesn't stand a chance.
Golf is much more business oriented than tennis.
You can lose a golf match to a client while talking him up, have a few drinks, and close the deal all in one day.
And you don't even have to break a sweat.
How is tennis going to compete with a game like that for corporate sponsorships?
Why would they promote a non-golf corporate spokesman?
Even the game of tennis can not support its "heroes" the way golf can, with it's club memberships, green's fees, weekly tournament crowds, TV money, and equipment sales dwarfing tennis's earning capacity.
And...
(I can't emphasize this enough.)
You don't have to sweat to play golf.
(Plus you get to drive around in those fun little cars, bet and double down on each hole, and have those drinks at the 19th hole.)
How can you match the appeal of a game like that?
Federer doesn't stand a chance.
Outbeyond
Legend
Oh, Rippy...why go there?? :-|
The Swiss bring us chocolate and gorgeous mountains and world-renowned neutrality (and, it must be noted, secret bank accounts) and - the seriously genuine tennis GOAT!! On a website like this, frankly, that says a lot more for the Swiss.
Golf is more Scottish at its roots, anyway. So I think we can all thank Murray and his predecessors for the worldwide game now heralded by Tiger Woods.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Yeah maybe...
but tennis should be attainable to many more people than golf with its extremely expensive equipment and gated clubs with greens worth playing.
As an American here is what I think. Tiger has more flair. He had a good "story". Federer appears to have had a run of the mill tennis upbringing, and he certainly doesn't really show too much positive emotion while playing. Tiger does the fist pumps and all that.
2nd, most of the big tournaments in golf are broadcast live on NBC, on weekend days, which makes them more available to the average tv watcher here. No one is getting up at 3am to watch tennis on ESPN2 except hard core fans. NBC and ESPN2 are VASTLY different types of networks, and have vastly different qualities of broadcast.
3rd, video games. I never play video games and I have logged hours upon hours of playing Tiger Woods on Playstation because it's easy, you can create cool-looking avatars and golf is fun to play on a game.
4th, he's multi-racial. This was a huge story when he came out because there are so few black players in professional golf, and because golf has such a long history of discrimination. There are still whites-only golf courses!!! If Venus and Serena were males, they might have a similar effect (since male sports are generally more popular, and male tennis is just a much higher quality). I saw a poster of Serena on the railroad in NY today, months away from the US Open. America has a huge minority population, and anything a little bit different is going to cause a stir. Tiger did, and the fact that he followed up with GOAT results in golf, just made him even more popular. Federer is white, and he's bland (even though he's funny and cool) to the average American consumer.
5th, Tiger has no popularity competition in golf. All of his other opponents are white, OLD, male and boring. They wear ugly clothes. He is cool. He looks 1000 times better in comparison to them so everyone roots for him. Tiger, when he was starting out, affiliated himself with Michael Jordan, one of the most popular athletes of all time. Federer has had much sparkier opponents (Nadal, Baghdatis, Agassi). This makes for great rivalries but it doesn't set him apart and doesn't make him look spectacular personality-wise in comparison.
I rarely see a Federer commercial on regular tv, while I always see Tiger. He's just more popular.
A tad rambling but you get the idea.
2nd, most of the big tournaments in golf are broadcast live on NBC, on weekend days, which makes them more available to the average tv watcher here. No one is getting up at 3am to watch tennis on ESPN2 except hard core fans. NBC and ESPN2 are VASTLY different types of networks, and have vastly different qualities of broadcast.
3rd, video games. I never play video games and I have logged hours upon hours of playing Tiger Woods on Playstation because it's easy, you can create cool-looking avatars and golf is fun to play on a game.
4th, he's multi-racial. This was a huge story when he came out because there are so few black players in professional golf, and because golf has such a long history of discrimination. There are still whites-only golf courses!!! If Venus and Serena were males, they might have a similar effect (since male sports are generally more popular, and male tennis is just a much higher quality). I saw a poster of Serena on the railroad in NY today, months away from the US Open. America has a huge minority population, and anything a little bit different is going to cause a stir. Tiger did, and the fact that he followed up with GOAT results in golf, just made him even more popular. Federer is white, and he's bland (even though he's funny and cool) to the average American consumer.
5th, Tiger has no popularity competition in golf. All of his other opponents are white, OLD, male and boring. They wear ugly clothes. He is cool. He looks 1000 times better in comparison to them so everyone roots for him. Tiger, when he was starting out, affiliated himself with Michael Jordan, one of the most popular athletes of all time. Federer has had much sparkier opponents (Nadal, Baghdatis, Agassi). This makes for great rivalries but it doesn't set him apart and doesn't make him look spectacular personality-wise in comparison.
I rarely see a Federer commercial on regular tv, while I always see Tiger. He's just more popular.
A tad rambling but you get the idea.
supineAnimation
Hall of Fame
It's a lot of things, but I would also argue that Federer has done similar things for tennis as Woods has for golf, except that this isn't as evident in America where tennis has never rebounded back to the popularity it enjoyed in the McEnroe/Connors days. And it is true that executives play golf as a networking/deal-making outing in business circles far, far more than tennis. Plus, America has become a wasteland of the obese and the lazy, and it's much easier for them to ride or even walk during a round of golf in which the actual action accounts for no more than 60 seconds of physical exertion beyond walking from hole-to-hole, if they do choose to skip the golf cart. I'm American so this isn't a outsider view.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Joe Pike
Banned
And what exactly did Woods for golf?
Did the TV ratings go up? Nope.
Federer at least made the ratings go up again.
Joe Pike
Banned
I thought Woods was the reason the Golf Channel became a must-have in all cable packages and hotel TV?
Joe Pike
Banned
Joe Pike
Banned
I have never seen a cable package with the "Golf Channel".
And never been in a hotel with that channel on hotel TV.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, pretty much. lol
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Do you just not know any better?
Tiger increased golf ratings substantially. And since his absence ratings have gone down.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
People in all over the world who probably never even been to a golf course or picked up a club in their lives know who Tiger Woods is. He's a transcendent figure. Even if you're not a golf fan, you tune in to cheer for Tiger.
Just look at how dramatic the difference is in events w/ Tiger and those w/o Tiger.
Exactly.
Joe Pike
Banned
The TV rating for golf have constantly being about zero.
Tiger didn't make a difference. Maybe is different in other countries.
Joe Pike
Banned
To be honest, it's very easy for people from America on here (where Woods is most popular) to come out and say how popular Woods is worldwide. True to an extent, but obviously, as most people on here are American, instead of how popular Woods is worldwide, they'll often be unwittingly commenting on how popular Woods is in America. So yes, Woods is bigger in America than Federer. No surprise there; he's American after all.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
You sound like you're not American, in which case I'll excuse your oversight on this topic. I know several people who only tune in when Tiger is playing; people who probably couldn't name another golfer, but know who Tiger is and will tune in to watch him play. This is reflected in the huge difference in ratings between Tiger events and non-Tiger events here in the US.
Why? Because, like we've said, he's a charismatic guy who transcends the sport and brings people in. Plus, in the wake of his chase for Jack Nickalaus' record, people want to tune in to see history. That also was part of the reason for the rise in Wimbledon ratings last year - people wanted to see Fed break the record.
That's precisely the problem with this thread. We have Americans talking about how much more popular Woods is than Federer. Well of course he's more popular in America!
If Fed was American, and Woods was Swiss, I highly doubt Woods would have the same American following.
Joe Pike
Banned
Federer is bigger in Europe than Tiger.
Far, far bigger.
There are even at least 200 football players who are bigger.
Well in England, Woods and Federer would be about equal probably. But yes, they're nothing compared to most footballers. In fact, Woods is probably a bit bigger in England, but as I said before in this thread, I put that down to him being American, and golf being a bit more popular than tennis.
lidoazndiabloboi
Hall of Fame
Just think back to last year's Shanghai Masters.
No Federer = No fans in the seats
I would say Federer has as much influence on tennis as Tiger has on golf.
No Federer = No fans in the seats
I would say Federer has as much influence on tennis as Tiger has on golf.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Tiger Woods is not just popular in America. As I have said the world's first billion dollar athlete does not have exposure only in America. He's problably one of the most marketable athletes in history, certainly greater than Federer in most regions including some European nations (namely the UK). There are several big international tournaments including one of the majors.
I answered "why" on the second post. He's American, which I believe gets him more worldwide exposure. And also, Golf was always a bit more popular than tennis.
I hope it doens't sound like I dislike Tiger or something by not putting it down to his character, but that's just the way I see it. If Woods was Swiss, I don't think he'd have the same popularity.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You mention footballers.
David Beckham plays soccer which is not that popular in America, yet he is very popular here.
Federer has not transcended the way Beckham has, or Tiger or Jordan.
Either there is some substantial weakness in Federer or a substantial weakness in tennis. I pick the former!
malakas
Banned
he's not american.that's what wrong with him.
The only place where tiger has raised interest is usa,the rest of the world couldn't care less.
supineAnimation
Hall of Fame
Take a look at the obesity rates in our great nation at some point. It should scare the bejeezus outta ya.
Andy G
Semi-Pro
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Well,
then please explain Beckhams cross-over appeal. He is not American. Do you believe an athlete must be 'anglo' to transcend?
Beckham has had a lot of fashion commitments, lots of marketing in America and he MOVED to America. That could be why you all love him there. And as malakas says, the popularity of football vastly exceeds that of tennis and golf.
Again, with you saying Fed has not transcended the sport, I think your American background is causing you to associate America's opinion with the opinion of the world.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You obviously know something about Tiger to respond on this thread. I am sure you married him also!
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You did not answer the question. And please stop using the 'you're an American excuse".
Beckham shoots down most of your arguments. Soccer is not that popular at all in America. Tennis is more popular than soccer here as far as TV ratings go.
And 'fashion commitments' did not just fall out of the sky and land on Beckhams lap. He earned those, be it through his good looks, charisma, etc.
Federer has not transcended internationally like Beckham, Tiger, or Jordan. He simply is not as marketable globally (not just in America).
Xenakis
Hall of Fame
Don't get why Tiger Woods is so rich to be honest. Tennis is much more popular on TV here in the UK and in Europe generally I would guess. One thing tennis has going for it is that it's not a male dominated sport in terms of who watches it and plays it recreationally (less male dominated might be a better way to put it perhaps, compared to the world's no1 sport football anyway, and golf for that matter, old man's 'sport.')
I think when Murray played that 5 setter against Wawrinka at last year's Wimby it was watched by millions of Brits. More than the champion's league final that year IIRC. Also since Murray emerged as a potential GS winner we've had coverage of the Aussie Open on terrestrial TV, and the WTF.
Article about TV ratings for Murray/Wawrinka on BBC1 (39% audience share at it's peak, pretty impressive.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/30/andy-murray-wimbledon-fourth-round-tv-ratings
I can't think of any incident when a game of golf created as much fuss as Murray or Henman at Wimby or Murray in recent grand slams. Would a golf match get almost 12 million viewers in the UK? Don't think so, even if it was a major and a Brit was the likely winner in a close game.
As CharlieFederer suggests, it must be due to the corporate demographic and sponsorship, don't see how TV rights and audience figures are going to drum up that much cash but I could be wrong.
I think when Murray played that 5 setter against Wawrinka at last year's Wimby it was watched by millions of Brits. More than the champion's league final that year IIRC. Also since Murray emerged as a potential GS winner we've had coverage of the Aussie Open on terrestrial TV, and the WTF.
Article about TV ratings for Murray/Wawrinka on BBC1 (39% audience share at it's peak, pretty impressive.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/30/andy-murray-wimbledon-fourth-round-tv-ratings
I can't think of any incident when a game of golf created as much fuss as Murray or Henman at Wimby or Murray in recent grand slams. Would a golf match get almost 12 million viewers in the UK? Don't think so, even if it was a major and a Brit was the likely winner in a close game.
As CharlieFederer suggests, it must be due to the corporate demographic and sponsorship, don't see how TV rights and audience figures are going to drum up that much cash but I could be wrong.
malakas
Banned
I find this hard to believe.
MasturB
Legend
It's because Tiger is half black and half asian.
When Tiger started getting more popular, the asian community internationally went nuts (more than the black community) and started picking up clubs.
Also the fact about Tiger being American is true as well. If Roger was American, he'd be in the media almost the same amount as Tiger. The American Media/Associated Press is the biggest conglomerate of news information in the world.
In a way, Roger being white and Tiger "looking" black (despite his asian roots, which most people never bring up) is the real difference aside from Tiger being American.
When Tiger started getting more popular, the asian community internationally went nuts (more than the black community) and started picking up clubs.
Also the fact about Tiger being American is true as well. If Roger was American, he'd be in the media almost the same amount as Tiger. The American Media/Associated Press is the biggest conglomerate of news information in the world.
In a way, Roger being white and Tiger "looking" black (despite his asian roots, which most people never bring up) is the real difference aside from Tiger being American.
