Being born in 1960 I have seen the gamut of the evolution of professional sports and the dissolution of amateur dreams.  I have seen the sports of my youth become exclusionary for my own children.  I'm not throwing baseball under the bus just yet but I believe the game of basketball has moved on from the days of my youth.  I'm not so much even interested in why basketball has become less important and even of less value than it was even 20 years ago.  It simply is finished under its current system, as a fullfiller of dreams of the common heartlander, unless of course new and bigger courts were built.  Another story.

What this does bring me to is the question of who we need to thank for keeping golf within the reach of everyman no matter how big or tall or quick or just born with a freakish appendage.  I think what has kept golf current is the modern equipment and the modern course of greater length and penal hazard.  Can anyone else support the argument that the key to keeping golf an open game where anyone can dream to be the very best is to keep the game playing field ever changing and ever more difficult played with easier devices.

I play golf with the little league coach of Jeff Overton.  He is just a normal kid who has made it big and even went to Indiana University.

Don't tell me that guys like Craig Stadler didn't get around even back in his day.  Don't you believe a guy like him could still make it?

... played with easier devices.

John,

You been brainwashed by the golf equipment companies.

JK:

You're arguing about physical characteristics - and I don't disagree.  Anyone of any physical size and shape can become a great golfer.

BUT.. the way things are with national junior golf tours, kids going to live at the Leadbetter Academy at age 13, etc., well, that is a modern phenomenon.  For every Jeff Overton exception that are countless young great players who did it this way - and it takes a LOT of money and as I say, slavish devotion to the game.

I see this as a modern phenomenon, one that gets worse and worse each year.

So I don't see the highest levels of golf available to everyman as you seem to.  Physically, yes.  Financially and while doing other sports and other things normal to being a kid, no.

Give me a break, what percentage of the exempt 125 went to a golf acadamy at 13?  I'd be shocked if it is over 5%.

One of my arguments is that if a basketball court was twice as long and the goal was twice as high the game would be open to more people, not less.  If flubber were a reality everyone could play.

I think what has kept golf current is the modern equipment and the modern course of greater length and penal hazard.  Can anyone else support the argument that the key to keeping golf an open game where anyone can dream to be the very best is to keep the game playing field ever changing and ever more difficult played with easier devices.

The one thing that jumps out at me is how many people begin playing with very old, hand-me-down equipment - sometimes old blades and wooden woods - yet they still get hooked. I think the game itself is far more intoxicating than many give it credit for being.

Then again, I feel that way about hoops, too. I played 3 or 4 days a week in college, and I might still be playing if I didn't fear another debilitating knee injury. The fact that I'm a 5'9" white math geek didn't stop me from playing in some pretty serious games in Philly, it just meant I didn't have much of a future in the sport.

Some might argue that I didn't have much of a future in anything else, either, but those are only the people that know me.

John,

Is your point about basketball that to be a top player in today's game one has to be a bit of a physical freak?  I was born in 1952 and was good enough at basketball to play as freshman at what is now an Atlantic 10 school.  Freshmen were not allowed to play varsity in those days (1971) but I average double figures and was the second best player on the team.  I only played one year because I didn't think I was good enough to get minutes on the varsity and didn't have a scholarship.

Sometimes I ask myself how I would approach sports if I were my son's age (senior in high school).  The answer I've come up with is that basketball would be even more important to me, because I would have seen it it as an entree to some Division II or III school where, I may be flattering myself here, I would be good enough to play varsity ball and where the college would value my skill and perhaps overlook an academic record somewhat below the typical entering student.

The consequence would have been much more focus on basketball to the exclusion of the other sports I played.  I probably would have dropped baseball, golf and tennis, which I tended to play in the summer while basically ignoring basketball, which is what I did best.

Sorry if this has nothing to do with your point about golf.

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 10:38:44 AM

I still see a place in hoops for less athletic players who can shoot and play smart.  Evidence Steve Nash.  Yes, it's more difficult today, but not impossible.

My point remains Fuzzy only gets to where he was if he makes a name on the national junior tour... that's the only way to get a college scholarship... only way to really get ahead in golf.  Oh there will always be exceptions, for sure. But this seems to be the modern way to the top in golf... and it's sure not the way of the everyman.

Sloan could still make it.

TH

Who are the academy twats on tour?  Show me some facts.

I'd guess there are many, but I have no clue nor do I care to check.  In any case, it's a modern phenomenon.  How it stands NOW is not the point - you ask about how to GET to the top, not about those who are already there.

And to get to the top these days, it goes how I described.

I believe that it can be proven that as an arena grows smaller the advantage goes to the larger opponent.  We then need a balance of improved equipment to meet the perfect mix.  I think golf has stumbled onto this mix quite by accident and now we need to support it.

Tom,
I think you're wrong in many cases.
Many kids travel all over the place, have fitness coaches, psychologists, etc,
That doesn't mean most of it's not BS.
Don't even get me started on travel soccer teams.


Good athletes can play other sports as well as golf-Tiger just chose not to out of a pure love of the game.
WAAAAAAAY more kids get burnt out focusing on one sport exclusively at too young an age. How many of them might be on the tour today but got sick of it?

The tour is full of late bloomers, the same as it's full of prodigies.
The same will be true in 20 years.

Tom,
I think you're wrong in many cases.
Many kids travel all over the place, have fitness coaches, psychologists, etc,
That doesn't mean most of it's not BS.
Don't even get me started on travel soccer teams.


Good athletes can play other sports as well as golf-Tiger just chose not to out of a pure love of the game.
WAAAAAAAY more kids get burnt out focusing on one sport exclusively at too young an age. How many of them might be on the tour today but got sick of it?

The tour is full of late bloomers, the same as it's full of prodigies.
The same will be true in 20 years.

Maybe so.  And believe me, I am VERY familiar with travel soccer - and baseball - teams.

I just see that exact scenario in golf these days, and it causes me to question JK's "everyman" argument.  As I say, I do believe there will always be exceptions - but we could say that for any sport.  I just do firmly believe that the truest way to the TOP in golf is as I say - as it is in soccer, baseball, several other sports - and that to me counters the everyman argument.

TH

Huck,

If it makes you feel better I will agree that no one from a first tee program is going to make the Tour without a sugar daddy.  I'm guessing that $3000 a year and some wheel time by mommy could get any kid everything they need.  

LOL
None of this makes me feel better.

Not sure re the figures, but I'd guess it requires more than $3K.  In any case, if you believe what you state here and still think the top levels of golf are within the reach of everyman, then enough said.  To me it's rather contradictory; I define "everyman" quite differently than you do.

So just remove that "everyman" part, and we have no problems.  Leave your argument to saying that no particular physical shape or size is required to excel at golf.  That's one of the game's great allures... although some will argue against it, noting how successful bomb and gouge is these days.  But I'll go along with you.

TH

On John's original premise, I'm hoping someone like JES can chime in. If I remember correctly, JES posted a while back about his experiences on the PGA Tour (as a Monday qualifier), the Nationwide Tour and the mini-tours; and I think he said that, length-wise, he was above average on the PGA Tour, average on the Nationwide Tour, and below average on the mini-tours. Yes, there's more to the game than that, but something is changing as we speak, and it's not the broadening of opportunities I don't think.

Peter