Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

I question why you assume the top levels of golf are within the reach of everyman.

Have you not heard of the national junior golf tours?

To reach the top in golf requires a HUGE financial and time commitment and slavish devotion to the sport, now more than ever.  Disagree?

So phyiscally, yes, anyone can become a great golfer.  But it takes 100% devotion to the sport and quite large financial resources... and it seems to me to get worse in this respect each passing year.  I question whether Earl Woods could have made Tiger what he was if he started in 2008....

And think of Jack Nicklaus, playing all the other sports he did as he grew up... no way that's possible these days.  If you want to become a great golfer, it's golf 100% of the time, 24/7.

Sorry to not answer your question.  But I can't answer if if I disagree with your central premise... which I do.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

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?

[Tom Huckaby]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

... played with easier devices.

John,

You been brainwashed by the golf equipment companies.

[John Kavanaugh]

As another example I grew up admiring two greats from my immeadiate area, Jerry Sloan and Fuzzy Zoeller.  I think if each grew up today Fuzzy would find his place and Jerry would get lost in the shuffle.  I see no comparison.

[John Kavanaugh]

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%.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

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%.

Ask this question again in 5-10 years... and also ask the same question about the top-ranked amateurs and college-players.  Perhaps not all went off to live at an academy, but I'd guess it's 90%+ who played quite a few national events quite far from their homes. And remember you asked about getting to the TOP LEVELS in the game.  I really think as things are set up now, this is a requirement.

[George Pazin]

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 Kavanaugh]

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.

[Phil Benedict]

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.

[Peter Pallotta]

John-

Tom makes a compelling counter-argument. But I'm reminded of a line John Barrymore once said: "A man is old only when regrets take the place of his dreams." I think that because golf doesn't have standardized fields of play, it still allows some dreams to trump many kinds of regrets, such as the regret that one wasn't born to grow 6' 9" tall. (This from a guy who at 6' could be a power forward for his highschool basketball team...but only because his highschool was filled with other short southern-Italian Canadians).  Do the fields of play need to keep evolving in order for those dreams to stay alive? I'm not sure, but I don't think so -- especially not if they keep moving ever-closer to a defacto 'standardization' in terms of length.

Peter
 

[Tom Huckaby]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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."


Of course they can. Ball and equipment manufacturers have been supporting the argument that easier devices are a benefit to all golfers since manufacturers have been around.

And golf architects and others have been supporting the argument the the key to keeping the game enjoyable for everyone is to keep changing courses to stay in step with ever changing devices.

So obviously some support those arguments while increasing numbers don't seem to. This is probably the primary dynamic of golf and architecture and it's always been that way.

Where have you been John?  

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[TEPaul]

John:

Long ago there was actually a concept in golf that was advanced by some of the early and perhaps best writers on golf and architecture that since the only opponent in golf is the golf course and not the human opponent (much like the sports of hunting and fishing etc) that the idea was for any player who considered himself a "sportsman" to ONLY use a ball and equipment that he felt could JUST sustain his physical skill in relation to the golf course and nothing more.

This was no different than the idea that a real sportsman in hunting does not use a 10 gauge shotgun to shoot a small bird and a sportsman in fishing does not use a line test much too heavy for the size of the fish he's after.

To do either of those things was not considered "sporting" because that kind of equipment would overwhelm his quarry or opponent and consequently not be an adequate test of his skill.

This idea never caught on very well in golf as everyone seemed to want to use whatever was allowable unlike the true "sportsman's" mentality in other sports where nature was the true opponent and where one who considered himself a true sportsman voluntarily reduced his equipment to a point that maximized the evidence of his physical and mental skill.

[jeffwarne]

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.

[John Kavanaugh]

TE,

Some of us sportsmen do not fight a new set of back tees that we may never play because we realize that the sport should test those of all skills equally.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[John Kavanaugh]

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.  

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[John Kavanaugh]

Huck,

Tell me, what child in the world today would you tell to put down the clubs at ten years old because he doesn't have a shot at being one of the top 100 golfers in the world someday if he works hard enough and catches a few breaks.  Please do not include your own.

[Peter Pallotta]

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