Just give me the truth!
All I want is the truth!
Why is the American golf media continuing to claim Tiger Woods is a popular sports figure? It is a constant insult to the intelligence of golf fans and a slap in the face of those who think women deserve equal rights to men. Let’s lay the cards on the table:
| Top 5 Active Golfers by N-Score | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | N-Score | % Appeal |
| Phil Mickelson | 75 | 52 |
| Tom Watson | 54 | 63 |
| Tiger Woods | 41 | 17 |
| Fred Couples | 35 | 57 |
| Ernie Els | 32 | 51 |
| Source: Nielsen / E-Poll | ||
Only 17% of the public like Tiger Woods. Clearly, the American public does NOT care for Tiger Woods. Yet the golf media will not acknowledge this.
The American golf broadcasts are insulting. For crying out loud, probably 17% of Americans pulled for the Russian hockey team in 1980! Can you imagine Brandel Chamblee calling that game?
“Oh, gee, the Americans won. But, I’ll tell you what, the Russians really were skating better than they have in a long time. Are the Russians ‘back’? Well, it’s too early to say, but things look very good for them in 1984. Let’s go to Kelly Tilghman who is interviewing Jim Craig.”
Kelly: “Jim, this has to be a big day for you, playing against a great team like the USSR. Do you feel honored that you got to play them? Do you think they are ‘back’? Do you think the USSR will win in 1984? Did the Soviets show you today that this game was a fluke, that they will soon dominate again?”
Jim Nantz: “Well, the Soviets didn’t get the gold, but they showed everyone they are ‘back.’ It’s too bad the Americans won, but we witnessed a Miracle on Ice today.”
Silly? Of course. Yet that is precisely how the American golf media covers golf. 83% of people can’t stand Woods, yet the golf media pretend he’s Captain “Sully” Sullenberger.
If you want to obsess over him because people detest him — and will therefore watch to pull against him — then admit that! Hire a few on-air personalities who will say things like, “83% of Americans hate this guy, and that string of ‘f–ks’ and ‘g—-ms’ shows you why. And holy cow, enough with the pouty baby faces. How old is this guy emotionally, two? Back to you, Joe Blow.”
Joe Blow: “I hear you loud and clear. Nantz-y and Brandel-y and Miller-y claim, ‘The fans still love him.’ We need to start IQ testing our ‘golf talent’ if they can’t read Nielson/E-poll reports. The vast majority absolutely detests this guy, but our cowardly liars continue to blow smoke up the asses of our viewers.”
Stop lying to us, Golf Channel! Stop lying to us, NBC! Stop lying to us, CBS! And, ESPN, how about giving us the TRUTH this week!
Instead of saying Woods is “popular” or “polarizing,” tell us the truth: Woods is seen as a lying sleazebag who is detested by 83% of our citizens.
Woods’ popularity is equal to British Petroleum during the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster! How many news reports in June 2010 claimed BP was “still popular with Americans”?
I don’t know about this. Not arguing your stats but it seems to me they don’t tell the whole story. Every time I see Tiger playing, he still has a huge gallery following him and the bulk of the gallery cheering passionately for him. He still drives TV ratings as well.
What questions did they ask the sample set? Were they golf fans or the general public? For example if I were to ask a 1000 people if they approve of Tiger Woods, I would guess I would get a very high percentage saying “no”. But if I were to ask the same 1000 people if they want to see Tiger Woods succeed, the numbers would be far more favorable. My point is these polls don’t always tell us everything. Also (as someone who knows a great deal about human behavior) I can tell you that what people “say” and what people “do” are often very different.
Unscientifically, everyone of my golfing friends wants to see Tiger back playing great golf. Tiger’s troubles are going on three years old. I think most people have moved past it; Americans have short memories and are generally very forgiving.
It’s Nielsen, for crying out loud. They do these polls for guys who offer tens of millions of dollars to have athletes hawk their products.
If all your friends want to see Woods do great, you either know a lot of 17 percenters — or they are not being honest with you for some reason. Speaking of which, your comment is so true:
“Also (as someone who knows a great deal about human behavior) I can tell you that what people “say” and what people “do” are often very different.”
Still, with that in mind, would a person be more likely to tell a pollster they liked Woods when they didn’t, or that they didn’t like him when they did? Sponsors must feel the polls are accurate because Woods has Fuse Science on his bag, not AT&T.
Oh, about the galleries, remember how sports broadcasts had to stop showing naked people running onto playing fields? It just encouraged other people to do it to be on television. The “In the hole!” crowd flock to the cameras to ensure their cool screaming winds up on the DVR.
But…. a key point of my article was that if the networks want to invoke the “move the needle” defense, fine. But why all the sugercoated coverage? If they are showing him now because most people don’t like or respect him and want to see him do poorly, then why not reflect that in the booth? Why not mention his poor N-Score? Why not say things like, “This guy is one of the most detested athletes in sports, but the “In the hole!” yahoos follow him around.” I’m not saying all six or eight on-air people have to do that, but why not at least a couple?
[They treat the other players like crap, to be blunt. I can't even watch the Golf Channel anymore. I tried twice this week to watch some Masters week coverage, and, both times, I landed on a Tiger Woods circle jerk. You know, I like Rory McIlroy a lot, but if he got the kind of coverage they give to Woods, I'd puke. I'd turn it off for sheer repetitiveness, just as I have with Woods. If they repeated over and over how Rory had 12 top-5 finishes in last 13 tourneys or whatever, if they agonized over his putting stats, well, where is the value in that? But, with Woods, they repeat the same 15 or 20 things over and over and over when other players' stories are vastly more interesting.]
It’s not like I’m boycotting these shows. I simply have no desire to watch. And I used to love the weeklong “At The Masters/Open/PGA” programming. But now I know what I’ll hear before I turn it on. I watch the live coverage and that’s it. And even that can become so Tiger-centric that I turn it off and “watch” on PGATour.com.
Well you’re talking about two different things. I agree the golf media over covers Tiger, anybody with half a brain can see that.
Regarding the poor N Score, obviously Tiger is not nearly as marketable as he used to be. And it goes without saying, he’ll never get that all the way back. But I’m not sure why a golf announcer would mention a poor N score on a broadcast. And again, I’m not arguing the accuracy of what the score says, I just have some doubts about what the scores mean. I think it’s crystal clear Tiger still has millions of supporters around the globe, just not as many as before.
Lastly, the “in the hole” guys are not unique to Tiger. Not at all. These are usually guys who’ve had one too many drinks and probably should be left out of any meaningful discussion. But watch how the gallery reacts to Tiger. Watch how loud they cheer when he’s announced on the first tee. Watch how they react when he wins. Like it or not, they’re are plenty of golf fans who want to see one of the greatest in history get back to doing what he does. No doubt there’s another large contingent who like a comeback story and just want to see a guy get back up after being kicked around for three years.
Well, I am in agreement with pretty much everything you wrote. And, very true, N-Scores are not a regular part of golf coverage. However, the crash in Woods popularity is one of the biggest stories in sports — and the golf media ignores it and, in fact, pushes the idea that nothing has changed. It’s the kind of thing Soviet propagandists did in the 1970′s.
Here’s the thing as I see it. An N score of 45 is probably not that bad of a score for a golfer right. If your list is accurate it’s actually a rather good score for a golfer. If 83 % detest him as you contend, how is he higher than Fred Couples, Els, and evidently every other golfer? If nearly everyone hates him, how does have any sponsors left at all? Doesn’t add up for me, and I’m just trying to pragmatic.
Secondly I’d really like to know what “% appeal” means? Not at all trying to be a smart a__, just would really like to understand that. What questions are asked? If the response is unfavorable does that mean the person being polled “detests” the individual as you seem to be claiming?
Ah, okay, I think I see the cause of the confusion. I read everything I could find on this before I wrote that post. (No, I’m not that conscientious, I just found it interesting, and I didn’t find much to read.) The N-score itself is a combo of two or more things. I think they were, basically, fame and popularity.
The second column is the one to which I’m referring. It’s just a straight “Do you like the guy or not” question. Well, having said that, the big question is: Is there an “I’m neutral” reply. If so, my 83% is off by however many said they were neutral. But, again, these numbers are very much in line with the numbers we’ve been seeing in every poll for over two years. And if Woods were still popular, Fuse Science wouldn’t be his bag sponsor. (Who, by the way, saw their stock go up 14% today!)
People just don’t like guys who do the things Woods did. (And I don’t want to rehash all the details of Woods’ scandal again, but there was WAY more to it than merely “having a bunch of affairs.” (For a lot of people, simply having one affair would have turned them away from Woods; but for many others, such as me, they were more disturbed by things like the text messages.) It’s like a lot of people want to ignore the most disturbing parts of it and pretend they aren’t the primary reason people have permanently rejected Woods.)
Wasn’t Rory’s n-score for the poll around 9? And a poll of 1100 people is pretty poorly representative of “the American public”. Not saying the results don’t reflect a little of what the public thinks but if you asked 1100 different people the same questions you could have drastically different results . What if 873 of the 1100 were Swedish-Americans? That might affect the result. Same as if you asked 1100 Perkins waitresses.
We’re talking Nielsen and E-poll; they know what they are doing. Besides, it’s not like these are outlier results; they are perfectly in line for what we’ve seen the past two-and-a-half years.
Your comment about Rory is interesting. I can’t get my hands on the full report — you probably have to subscribe and pay the big bucks — which I would love to see. Rory’s N-Score is 9, yes, according to the news articles. But that’s all they said about it. Here are my thoughts: the survey was strictly of Americans, and Rory is not a household name here yet, so that’s going to skew him lower than he would be worldwide. However, what I really wanted to see was Rory’s % Appeal among those who did know of him. My guess is that it would be higher than any of the guys they listed in that chart. That’s just a guess, of course; if anyone has a link to the full results, post it here and Lanny H Golf will give you a free subscription to our website.
I think Rory’s % appeal would be 100 among people who know who he is. The other comments I found interesting about the report were that all the golfers were well behind the highest rated n-score which belonged to Jeter I think.