"Tiger not playing hurts golf's impact because of who he is, but people don't stop playing golf because Tiger's not playing."

Nice job by Mike Walker using some numbers to clarify the lack of a "Tiger Effect" on every segment of golf but Nielsen ratings.

"I think a lot of people in the industry were anticipating increased participation [because of Woods], but it didn't materialize in a substantial way," says Greg Nathan, vice president of the National Golf Foundation (NGF). "As far as recreational golf goes, we saw very little increase and when he's not playing, it's highly unlikely we'll see a significant decrease."

According to the NGF, 26.1 million Americans played golf in 1997. In 2008, that number was 28.6 million. An increase, sure, but not anything you could attribute to Woods.

"Population, demographic and lifestyle factors contributed to the increase," Nathan says. "This is a sport driven by passion. What attracts people to the game is the satisfaction of hitting good shots, the social and competitive aspects, being outside."

Equipment sales show a similar immunity to the Tiger effect. Golf Datatech, a market research group, says total equipment sales (balls, clubs, gloves, bags and shoes) were $2.4 billion in 1997. After peaking in 2007 at $2.7 billion, sales in 2009 were $2.4 billion.

"I don't think Tiger has a direct link to the sale of equipment," Golf Datatech co-founder Tom Stine says. "Tiger not playing hurts golf's impact because of who he is, but people don't stop playing golf because Tiger's not playing. A lot of media people have asked me how much this will hurt Nike sales. I tell them it won't hurt Nike sales at all."