You’ll just have to believe me when I say I essentially ignored everything the writer “said” because I recognize he was making virtually the same claim as guys like Foley have. The difference is that he attempted to isolate a Woods effect in some manner. He did that by comparing the purse growth rate from '90-'96 to what it looked like once Tiger came on the scene and through his prime. That the growth rate basically tripled once Tiger came on the scene IS telling to me - considering the economy and golf were not in a bad place at all during those years leading up to Tiger’s arrival.
I firmly believe the decline (which I haven’t looked up the numbers but believe was probably pretty brief) in purses after 2008 was a direct result of the recession, not Tiger’s struggles.
I’d argue Tiger did bring golf to the mainstream far beyond what it had been (he basically made an entire race of people take interest in it that previously couldn’t have cared less), but making it cool to watch/follow golf and play golf are two very different things.