Just thinking aloud...

[birly-shirly]

Lots of nostalgia on the forum the last couple of days, which prompts a couple of thoughts for me.

1. I'll start with a couple of what seem to be commonly held "truths" about the state of the game.

(a) That growth is flatlining, at least in the game's traditional strongholds.

(b) That governing body regulation, in the form of equipment rules, is routinely accused either of holding back, or threatening to hold back growth in the game by restricting novel club design that might make the game easier.

2. There seems to be an assumption shared by factions who disagree on most other things, that it's important for the game that the same equipment is available off the rack in the pro shop as on tour. Or, at the very least (with due regard for aficionados of tour issue exotica) that this should appear to be the case to the average punter.

3. Lots of people in internetland seem to pine for a lost era of shotmaking and more skillful, subtle and/or strategic pro golf. That era seemingly ended with either Nicklaus or Watson - although there seems to be a neverending debate as to whether that last generation of shotmakers could hold a candle to the Nelson, Snead, Hogan generation.

Putting all this together, what occurs to me is that it looks as though golf went through quite a lengthy period in which the equipment was fairly standardised. After steel shafts were legalised, it looks to me as though golf clubs, both woods and irons, remained pretty much the same for at least 40 years. TT Dynamic Gold basically dates back to the early '40s. Forged blades and persimmon heads were everywhere. Rubber grips and laminated wood heads crept in during that period, but that seems like about it for innovation. That period really just ended with Eye2 irons and then TaylorMade metal woods.

I've got to admit here that I don't know how much the ball changed or improved during that time. I've heard the stories about how poor MacGregor's balls were and I believe that both Hogan and Nicklaus were regularly at loggerheads with MacGregor over the temptation to put, what else, a Titleist into play.

So, I guess I'm wondering, do we need to question the dogma that technology needs to be unleashed for the sake of growing the game? If the 40s through the 70s were a golden age for golf and the equipment hardly changed throughout, should that tell us something?

Golf seems to like its historical icons as much as any sport, and I'm beginning to wonder whether the game doesn't lose more when it loses the sense of continuity with its past heroes (and venues), than it does from bringing in hot faces and high MoI.

 

[GPM1985]

So, I guess I'm wondering, do we need to question the dogma that technology needs to be unleashed for the sake of growing the game?

We always need to question dogma.

Golf seems to like its historical icons as much as any sport, and I'm beginning to wonder whether the game doesn't lose more when it loses the sense of continuity with its past heroes (and venues), than it does from bringing in hot faces and high MoI.

People love money and hollow status symbols far more than tradition. Everyone who makes, markets, sells, or buys new equipment is equally complicit in the disappearance of the old ways.

Professional golf is governed by the same basic profit-driven agenda as any other professional sport that is routinely televised. They're chasing dollars, no surprise there. Why anyone would expect a sense of integrity and tradition to be maintained in today's environment is beyond me.

 

[birly-shirly]

We always need to question dogma.



People love money and hollow status symbols far more than tradition. Everyone who makes, markets, sells, or buys new equipment is equally complicit in the disappearance of the old ways.

Professional golf is governed by the same basic profit-driven agenda as any other professional sport that is routinely televised. They're chasing dollars, no surprise there. Why anyone would expect a sense of integrity and tradition to be maintained in today's environment is beyond me.

I understand. And I understand that there's a chain of connected (business) interests at play. I suppose it could hardly be otherwise. What I'm not clear on is to what extent the equipment companies financially drive the system. How much are they putting into the game, compared to the car manufacturers, investment companies, property developers, drinks companies and luxury brands who are often the primary sponsors of events, and even players?

Buick or Volvo will want good tele and an engaged audience. But do they care how far the ball travels compared to 20 years ago, or whether the winner has a driver made from unobtanium?

 

[GPM1985]

Buick or Volvo will want good tele and an engaged audience. But do they care how far the ball travels compared to 20 years ago, or whether the winner has a driver made from unobtanium?

I'd say they care very much. Bombers like Phil and Bubba at the top of the leader board means more people watching golf coverage and the advertisements that golf coverage is laden with. Going off of this, it's safe to say that no one wants Tiger to emerge from his slump more than his sponsors. I'm curious to see who, if anyone, will oust Tiger from his position as dominant marketing horse on the PGA.

 

[KGlennCole]

Buick or Volvo will want good tele and an engaged audience. But do they care how far the ball travels compared to 20 years ago, or whether the winner has a driver made from unobtanium?

I'll add to GPM's response.. the golf equipment manufacturer's care a BUNCH! How else are they going to get Joe Schmoe buying the latest equipment or envisioning (in their minds, of course) 300 yd drives?

Personally, it is very sad a lot of older courses are now apparently obsolete to the Tour. A lot of the newer courses (not all) have no real character or they're surrounded by development (same thing, actually).

I cringe at things like #16 in the Phoenix tourney. Sure, makes good TV for those who are snow-bound. But, is is really good for the game?

But... someone's making $$$. Right?

 

[siksta]

The ball has changed tremendously before if you hit it bad it would cut and a miss hit would travel 2 fairways over. Today a pro v1x lasts a whole round and mishits not as bad!!

 

[siksta]

Drivers now we have clubs designed to draw and fade on command wheres the skill? At least Bubba knows how to shape it a skill he learned as a kid. Not some wrench to change the face 3 deg to make you shape it and then most of the high handicappers still cant draw the ball-ouch! Manufacturers arent helping players play better no way! Hit it long yes i agree i think everyone admits they hit the ball longer now then 30yrs ago i know i have. But handicaps aren't goig down due to equipment as a matter of fact they haven't gone done in yrs from the statistics.

 

[birly-shirly]

I'll add to GPM's response.. the golf equipment manufacturer's care a BUNCH! How else are they going to get Joe Schmoe buying the latest equipment or envisioning (in their minds, of course) 300 yd drives?

I agree - but my whole point was about whether the non-golf equipment sponsors care.

@GPM1985 - why would those sponsors care about whether or not Phil and Bubba were driving the ball 20 yards shorter? Or, more to the point, have they any interest in seeing them drive the ball even further?

I totally understand that long-hitters are a draw - but they're considered long in relation to the field, and definitely in relation to the average spectator, but not in absolute terms. Jack was a big draw hitting the ball 270 because he was long relative to his competitors.

Personally, I think sponsors would like the guy regardless of how far he hits it, if he contends, and if he doesn't win, is at least on TV on Sunday afternoon. But then maybe sponsors, even if they're not selling big sticks, like the fact that they've got their name on a guy who - win, lose or tie - hits the ball further in absolute terms than Nicklaus did in his prime. But then you've got to deal with the reverse side of the argument - that all these guys are devalued because it's just the equipment, innit?

I think that's Siksta's point, at least in part.

 

[KGlennCole]

Ooops.. slightly mis-read.

I think the non-golf advertisers do care. They want as many eyeballs as they can get to justify the advertising $$. The Tour needs exciting players, exciting finishes, etc. If its players that bomb it and gouge it, the advertisers are satisfied.. the sponsor is satisfied. Tradition and nostalgia? Bleh.. to a degree. It is what it is.

 

[birly-shirly]

Yep - I'd agree that advertisers, and in fact pretty much everyone, wants an exciting spectacle. I'm just not sure why having everyone hit it a bit further makes for a better spectacle.

I think bomb'n'gouge is more of an issue of course set-up, and of players' physical strength in coming out of the rough, not so much of the distance that they hit going into the rough.

I do think that probably the best shot I saw last year was phil coming out of the trees at the Masters - but that's a far cry from wedging it out of the rough, which for the most part does nothing for me so far as spectacle goes.

And with so much of golf being watched on TV - I really don't understand the drama of the big drive. In person, yes - but not on TV.

Finally, there seems to be an assumption that exciting golf is birdie-fest golf. Maybe that's true for a certain audience. But personally, I'd just as soon sit and watch guys struggle to make their score. Bad weather at the Open is something that I always try to watch.

 

[siksta]

i do think that probably the best shot I saw last year was phil coming out of the trees at the Masters - but that's a far cry from wedging it out of the rough, which for the most part does nothing for me so far as spectacle goes.

How many players can pull that shot off? So is that ball striking ability and shotmaking abilty combined? Or was that a case of trying to hit far from that spot?

 

[dominicscaife]

Finally, there seems to be an assumption that exciting golf is birdie-fest golf. Maybe that's true for a certain audience. But personally, I'd just as soon sit and watch guys struggle to make their score. Bad weather at the Open is something that I always try to watch.

I agree with you Birly, I love watching the Pro's have to grind it in the wind and rain at the Open.

Fond memories of the second round a couple of years back, KJ Cho summed things up best with his broken english caught on microphone to his caddy. After getting up and down for a par after hitting driver, 3 wood into a par 4 with the 30mph+ wind howling against them.

"Best ever tough", he said.

Unfortunately the sad fact is most people don't appreciate the increase in difficulty tough weather conditions brings.
And when the ball is going into/close to the hole - it just seems more amazing to the average observer.

Example: My girlfriend will always scream and go wow when a pro knocks a simple chip close. I'm pretty sure she's closer to the average viewer than us weekend warrior's. So I just don't see much hope other than educating those average viewers.. or better yet, getting them playing the game, so they can appreciate it themselves.