I hear this argument all the time, especially concerning parity in baseball and football. Although I think many people want it to be true, I doubt it is. Golf has flourished since Tiger started dominated, because we all want to watch him and how good he is. Tennis is much more exciting when there is one or two dominant stars (Mac, Sampras, Agassi), rather a bunch of no-bodies popping up for a major or two. In football and baseball, everyone wants to see streaks and records broken. When a team is dominant, it creates the buzz. Parity sucks.I'm not convinced that a smile is the best addendum to that Unless you have a vested interest in the Tiger, of course
Make that 5 in a row .
From the perspective of the game of golf as an entertainment, I think domination is a bad thing. Butch Harman said a few weeks ago that if Tiger plays well in a competition, the only question is who comes second. That means that the PGA Tour is a much less competitive sport, which makes it less interesting to watch. If that starts to drop TV audiences, and thereby the prize money on offer, that will have a beneficiail long-term effect on the sport. But I'll be sorry to lose interest in the meantime.
I like and respect Tiger Woods, but I really don't want him to be that good for much longer.
Tiger's current streak is exceptional. When was the last time a golfer won 5 in a row? Given the subtlties of golf, it's almost impossible. Tiger didn't take the lead until the last day -- it's not like he ran away from it from the start.