Was Schwartzel's win good for the game of golf?

Article by Lee Siegel

In the aftermath of The Masters, I made some comments in the newsroom that ended up on Twitter. Being in the media, I’m very familiar with how these things work: I said one thing and it ended up on Twitter as “Lee Siegel hates golf.” All meant in fun, but not really close to what I meant.

Here’s what I meant: I think there are different reasons every individual person watches a sporting event and it can vary from event to event. I’ve always enjoyed watching greatness. Who wouldn’t want to watch Da Vinci paint or JFK or MLK speak... you get the point. So I’m not one who ever minded watching Jordan dominate the NBA, or more precisely, Tiger win. So it was with that eye that I watched Sunday’s Masters finish.

From my chair, it felt like the same thing I’ve seen in almost every major for the last 10 years. Was Charl Schwartzel great? of course he was. Was the drama of the day great? of course. But did we see the future that was being forecast before the round begun, that future being Rory McIlroy? The answer is no. We saw another final-round blowup. Same as Nick Watney at the PGA and Dustin Johnson at the U.S. Open.

Could Schwartzel win the grand slam this year, or at least another major in the next two or three years? Sure he could. But we're still waiting for that to happen for Jim Furyk, Y.E. Yang, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis and on and on. Yeah, they all have different stories, but the story for golf seems to end the same, with a different major winner every time and none of them the so-called “future of golf.” Not one of the previous major winners -- save for Tiger and Phil -- seems to be able to re-create their greatness in another major. They were great once but never again. That's not my definition of greatness, and the source of my Twitter-elevated comments.

I don’t think anyone would disagree that rivalries are good in sports. We cherish Giants-Dodgers here. All I’m asking for is there to be more than the one-sided Tiger-Phil rivalry in the majors. If others would join the fray, it would be spectacular for golf and would finally make the pre-tournament and pre-round talk seem relevant, rather than more talk about how (insert hot name here) will be the future of golf.

Right now, if you were selling golf at its highest level (the majors), you would have to say, “Come watch because you never know who will win.” “The parity means anyone can win on Sunday.” “It could be a spectacular finish like the Masters.”

Who would you want people to follow on Thursday and really feel they have a chance to win? Tiger and Phil are good picks; can you name anyone else you could be sure will contend and wion more than once in their career?

So was Schwartzel’s win good for golf? In my mind, no -- not unless he wins again and again. All I’m asking is for someone to step up and come through in the clutch, under the hottest lights.

Do I hate golf? To the contrary, I love it, and will even if that next great clutch player never steps up. I’m just hoping someone does soon.