The Atlantic: "When Tiger Woods is competitively irrelevant, what happens to golf?"

The Atlantic's Jake Simpson files a mostly reasonable consideration of golf's prospects post-Tiger in light of the recent Masters played without the most compelling player of the last 15 years. Thanks to By-The-Minute Golf's Lawrence Donegan for Tweeting this.

While the 10% ratings drop computed for years Woods isn't within five shots of the lead doesn't seem that catastrophic to me, Simpson's take here resonates:

The sport is never going to match the global popularity of football, soccer, or basketball, and it’s never going to resonate with the American masses like baseball or NASCAR. But millennials like me—and people who otherwise wouldn’t know Augusta National from Augusta, Maine—have followed golf because of Woods. Sure, there was his adultery and his messy divorce and his reams of steamy texts with women other than his wife. But even after all that, Woods remained the one golfer who could generate moments so special that a five-year-old watching him on TV could fall instantly in love with the game. Grantland founder Bill Simmons saw that light in his son’s eyes after the 2011 Masters, when Woods made a front-nine final round charge before finishing fourth.

I don't need Tiger to teach my child how to behave. I need him to teach my son that it's fun to watch golf. Yesterday was the first lesson. There was a putt, and a roar, and a fist pump, and then my son screaming "Again!" Only Tiger Woods could have made it happen. It's a gift.

Simmons is right. Only Tiger Woods can make those moments happen. And if Spieth or McIlroy or some other budding star can’t duplicate his success on the course and his persona off it, those singular golf moments will disappear with him.