Zero. Nada. Zilch. Nil. Zip.
Each one of these words easily sums up my lack of interest in a Tiger Woods vs Phil Mickelson $9 million-dollar showdown.
Why would I want to watch two forty-something millionaires play 18 holes for a winner take all pay-per-view event in Las Vegas? Maybe if the loser had to caddy for the winner for two tournaments next season. Nah, I still would not watch.
Someone suggested tuning in because the two have been ferocious rivals during their stellar careers. The stellar part is correct but as far as being rivals, well during Woods hey-day, Phillip was a very small footnote for the most part. It was more Ernie Els getting in Tiger’s way than Mickelson.
Later, of course Phil got a few shots in but rivals? Only in the minds of those publications which start with Golf (Channel, Digest .com for example).
It is those same media outlets pumping the tires of this contrived battle down in Las Vegas in November, just in time for the American Thanksgiving weekend.
There is no shortage of groups who will benefit from this event monetarily which is exactly why it was created.
This really doesn’t do anything to grow the game in the same manner as if the two faced-off in the final round of a major-any major. The eyes on that would be earned and not bribed. If you are keeping score, since 1997 the two have played in the same group on the final day nine times and Phil has a 5-3 edge with one tie. They both fired unspectacular 75’s that day.
I might have a mild interest in this circus if all the money on the line went to the charity of choice for the winner. There is some mention of a charitable aspect for a few dollars but it’s even finer than the fine print on the contract.
Back in the day, the 1960’s, we had Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf. This was essentially the same idea as the Woods/Mickelson money grab.
Two stars of different eras got together and played golf. The difference was there was no such thing as pay-per-view and the winner got far less than the payout for this farce.
Sure, you got to watch a 23-year-old Jack Nicklaus take on a 51-year-old Sam Snead. A pair of 53-year-old legends, Ben Hogan and Snead battled it out for prize money and bragging rights.
There was even a Canadian clash which saw George Knudson take on Stan Leonard-George was 27 and Stan was 49.
These shows did provide a little background of their locations and the courses were not always the more recognizable tracks, so they get some Brownie points. But it was still a manufactured competition between two players where one was generally not in his or her prime.
We all know Phil has seen his best golf go the way of the dodo bird and while Woods has shown flashes of his old dominant self, there are too many lapses in his game. It seems this version of Tiger can still roar but he has lost a lot of bite.
Instead, we are left with two wealthy, older golfers playing each other to increase their wealth and maybe grab an extra promotional contract before the curtain comes down on their careers.
So, for me to make a dent on the Mastercard to watch them play when I can see them play for free almost any other weekend is not going to happen. Sure, it’s not against each other but I can change the channel and not feel obliged to watch because I paid for it.
But I’m sure some people will. I hope they get their money’s worth.
Things die in the desert and this idea should as well.
