Ok, I think we can discuss this qualitatively. For the sake of discussion, let's assume some things about the act of playing golf; as Ricter menitoned, there are plenty of statistics, but lets just go with some common sense assessments. 1. Golf is an expensive sport. Clubs, green fees, travel etc. 2. Courses in impoverished areas are nearly non-existent as playing is somewhat of a luxury. 3. Even in the 90's, several courses/clubs discriminated against minorities. If you disagree with any of the above let's hear it, otherwise, lets take those statements at face value. So lets when you say "traditionally white sport"; I would add "traditionally affluent white sport". The fact is, Tiger's father was a good golfer himself. A single handicapper by many accounts. They lived in orange county; a genrally affluent area with lots of courses with year round access. So let's go back to some of the factors that made Tiger's rise possible: 1. Family (father's influence). 2. Money (enough to play lots of golf). 3. Geography (not an urban ghetto). 4. Time in history (ok, so the 90's weren't that discriminatory, but it existed). http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/18/s...tour-event-instead-of-changing-its-rules.html http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-22/sports/sp-236_1_shoal-creek Tiger had no control over 1,2,3 and 4 above. These were purely a result of the womb he came out of and when. Can we agree on this?
Thank you for reading and acknowledging that fact. It seem so many are too quick to just follow the latest talking point.