The 2016 British Open turned into a performance by both Stenson and Mickelson in the final stage, staging one of the great showdowns in the history of the British Open. At the time, Stenson was 40 years old and Old Mi was 46 years old. So, after the "War of the Century", people can't help but think of tigers that are only a year older than Stenson. As the two kings of the world golf world, if there is a real contest between Lao Mi and Tiger old friends, it will be very exciting.
But there was never a right time to pull the two together for a "showdown in the sun" until the "Black Friday" after Thanksgiving this year.
the pay-per-view will have a "suggested retail price" of $19.99, and will start at 3 p.m et on nov. 23. held at shadow creek golf club in las vegas, the head-to-head match play showdown won’t be open to the public. sunset in las vegas hits about 4:38 local time, meaning the event won't finish up under lights.
On thanksgiving this weekend, las Vegas Shadow Creek Golf Club, the $9 million prize money battle for the king will be held. Tickets will never be sold to the public, only some sponsors and VIPs are allowed to enter, and the broadcast signal of the contest will be broadcast on the pay-per-view channel in the United States for $19.90 per time.
The tournament was also very appropriate to be held in Las Vegas, and earlier the local bookmaker offered odds, Woods won at 0.45 odds, while Mickelson won at 1.8, and Woods had a good chance of winning.
can you spare a couple of ultra-rich golfers twenty bucks?
It's the media's question: Would you give two super-wealthy golfers $20 each?
As soon as the report of the pay-per-view fee came out, it became the source of the slot point for this king-of-war final. People start with the name of the game diss — it should actually be called "capital one's the match", the first capital game, otherwise why not take a name that is more like a collegiate football bowl game?
mostly, though, it is a confusing event, something that sounded great in theory, still could be fun, but is more likely being marketed into a complete clown show.
Moreover, this bizarre game sounds great in concept and interesting in appearance, but it actually looks exactly like a market-oriented "clown show".
People also questioned: The winner took the full $9 million prize money, but your $19.99 supported the prize pool. If Tiger and Old Mi each come up with their own million dollars, that's a good thing, but in front of two big names who together are estimated to have an estimated net worth of more than a billion dollars, is the mere 9 million incentive for them to agree to this competition?
Others have questioned the news that they donated their prize money to charity, because there is no real information and details disclosed (some small bets will be made temporarily in the process, and the winning money will be donated by the players who choose to donate to the charity), and the use of charity to offset the criticism is still incomprehensible. If it's for charity fundraising, why not put the live broadcast on a free platform, let the winning golfer pay the total amount of the donation in one lump sum (the sponsor will secretly return the money to him anyway), and then let as many viewers as possible see the game and spend four hours running a fundraising show, so that the money raised may be more than 9 million.
Obviously, it's expensive to run a game, even if it's a two-person game, but the traditional web and cable TV can also sell ads, and there are countless stagnant hours here when Mickelson and Woods walk on the fairway.
The race used to be promoted as a starting point for "fun and different ways to promote the sport". Mickelson said in an interview with Espn, "it's an opportunity for us to bring golf to the masses in primetime", but it did not bring golf to the "public", but let the most enthusiastic fans pay 20 yuan first, and the game started at 3pm local time, it was not primetime, there were no fans on the scene, only sponsors, VIP guests, Because this stadium is not for the PGA to host events, nor is it for 15,000 spectators. Considering that at TPC Scottsdale, the host of the Phoenix Open, not too far from Vegas, can you imagine the audience's reaction on its famous 16th hole when they bet on who was closest to the flagpole?
As a result, the pay-per-view initiative has been dubbed "an obvious money grab" by fans — grabbing money, a tournament without ethos.
At the press conference on November 21, local time, Mickelson said that I was willing to bet 100,000 yuan that I would play birds on the first hole. Woods said you think you'd catch a bird in the first hole? Mickelson said: "I knew I would catch the bird in the first hole." Woods says: double it! The conversation was interpreted by reporters as a "botched" performance that organizers could arrange in order to play on time without a real bet. $200,000 is a dime a dozen for these multimillionaires, and $9 million might be something, but the question is, the first hole is $200,000, and what happens to the remaining 17 holes?
This "deliberate" tension creates that many people don't buy. In their view, for a while, Mickelson did prove himself to be the closest strong opponent to Woods' strength. But this "tension" between them has faded as they get older and the performance of the two-man game, and what remains is this awkward game and the water-filled bet.
During the match, Woods and Mickelson and the two caddies will wear Mai, live broadcasting real-time dialogue, interaction and battle conditions, and the live broadcast of the event also uses drones, as well as high-speed cameras, golf animation displays, and real-time trajectory and flight path display of each shot. It looks more like a golf star reality show.
Image and source: Yahoo Golf