Good or bad?

[RayRay]

Last 12 golf majors have had 12 different winners. I can't see that as a good thing.

[rabb]

yes, parity is awful

[lotus]

I don't like sports dynasties, I think it's a great thing.

[rabb]

I don't like sports dynasties

ya' don't say

[lotus]

In most any sport. I think it's better for the leagues as a whole if they have different markets win championships. Think of how many converts a city makes when their team plays for all the marbles. Converts = $$$.

Even if only 10% of those people stick with their team from that point it's a win for the sport.

[RayRay]

Yeah but this is a question about the viability of a sport, not just team converts. I think this is horrible because there is no standout star, no relevant rivalries, etc. People aren't going to watch some random European every week.

[rabb]

Parity in any sport makes it more enjoyable to me...the same thing over and over gets very old.

[lotus]

Maybe there's a valid distinction between team and individual sports to be made here. Golf and tennis stars aren't affiliated with a city or region in the same way that team sports are, so it obviously helps out the PGA if Tiger is on fire because people tune in to see him no matter where they are.

That also limits how much exposure the other possibly great players get until the squeak out a win. I'm willing to bet Tiger still gets more press than McElroy and he hasn't played all year basically.

[Jammer]

Phil is the second most followed golfer after Tiger and even with his popularity he does not bring in the numbers like Tiger does when he is in a tourney.