The Future: Relatable Golf?
On the news that ratings were actually up for this hardly satisfying 2007 Masters, I've heard from a number of people that they argued with friends over the weekend about the setup and the joys of watching great players suffer.
There is a sizeable audience of the viewing public that enjoys watching the best players struggle. They like seeing them humiliated and brought down to a lower level of skill.
"They know how I feel now."
This mentality has been around a long time and many of the games lesser-informed writers have celebrated the notion of pro golfers serving as modern day gladiators served up for the people to devour in humiliating spectacles.
So I'm wondering if championship golf is going to go the way of everything else in our society. Will it have to become "relatable" (as the marketing folks like to say) for big-time golf to succeed? In other words, will professional golfers eventually serve at the pleasure of the people, with major events played to publicly humiliate millionaire golfers on overcooked layouts in order to make the average man feel better about his lousy game?
Personally, I find it to be an incredibly selfish way to view golf. It's a lot more fun to see the talent of these great players exposed, celebrated and savored. But maybe that's old school? Thoughts?
Monday, April 9, 2007 at 09:31 PM
Reader Comments (23)
Golf, unlike so many other sports, is one in which we all feel like we're playing the same game. Of course, the differences between the games of the average golfer and the tour professional are many, skill being only one part of it all. The current image of pro golfers being elitist, spoiled rich boys isn't helping, of course, but the desire to see the pros suffer goes back quite a ways I'm sure.
I get a small feeling that part of the desire to see them struggle has to do with how pro golf is being seen and treated right now. The professional golfer isn't being seen as a "good golfer" out there to entertain people through a display of their skills and abilities. They are seen as something beyond humanity, complete with repititious announcements that "this kind of shot would be impossible for the amature" or the like. We don't see any part of ourselves or our game in them, nor are we encouraged to, it seems.
The more distanced the tour players appear, the greater the desire for people to see them suffer. Does the same attitude exist with the senior tours? LPGA? I kind of get the feeling it is pretty focused on the young guys, mostly because they so little resemble any of us. The more focused the LPGA gets on young stars and the like, the more likely the same "make 'em squirm" attitute will show up there.
If someone, somewhere would get the idea to make the professional game resemble the regular golfer's just a tad, either by way of course conditions, venue, or, dare I say, equipment, we might see a bit of a trimming back in the whole "make 'em pay for being good" view.
We can't relate to them in any other way than through their pain, it seems, and that sucks.
Now that equipment has blown up the old harmony and ruined the basis of the old synthesis, the dialectic is back and we're fighting our way to a new synthesis. It's important to keep arguing that this kind of golf isn't pleasurable, it doesn't feed the soul, and it won't grow the game. Schadenfruede may bring eyeballs to the tube but it won't sell equipment or greens fees.
The major argument against bifurcation of the rules (to impose, say, a Tour Ball that's 20% shorter) is the notion that we all play the same game, and relatability is part of the game's appeal. We don't play the same game the pros do, but we like to delude ourselves that we do. I don't think that's a factor for me, but it seems to be for many people. (How do others who post to this site feel about this?)
I guess there's also the sadism/masochism relation at work here. When I play, I like to enjoy myself, but plenty of people aren't happy unless they make things as difficult for themselves as possible -- playing from the back tees, seeking out the hardest courses, losing a dozen balls at PGA West or Kiawah and shooting twenty strokes over their claimed handicap. If that's your idea of fun, then your idea of a great championship will be one where even the mighty pros are humbled by the game and the conditions.
Let's hope FX is right, and the pendulum will swing back. (Does that make Geoff the apostle of Thesis or Antithesis?)
And while we are making the ball travel 15-20% less let's also make certain that we put the ability to slice and hook the ball back into the dimples, the ability to hook and slice the ball to make shots required by course strategy and also the inadvertent hook and slice; i.e., wonder where some of Tiger's drives would have gone if a 1968 ball had been used, a little more off-line perhaps?
As for excitement, I was glad to see a guy win who was hitting, on average, drives of 265.
Jim
I admit that, in the past, I was a "let 'em suffer" kind of guy. Watching the best players struggle on difficult golf courses showed me their humanity, and it related to the way mine my humanity is regularly displayed on the golf course.
One thing I thank you for is opening my eyes to how architecture plays ever so subtly into our enjoyment of the game. And there is no better way to illustrate this than by discussing risk/reward. Historically, that is what made holes 13 and 15 at Augusta so great. But frankly, Tiger with a 7 or even a 6 iron is pretty low on the risk meter. So, yeah, watching him trying to cut a shot around a tree does add risk, and with that more enjoyment of the telecast. (by the way, I think Tiger could use one of those "W.W.J.D." bracelets - you know, "What Would Jack Do?". In this case, the answer is pitch the ball to the left side of the fairway and attack the pin with a wedge. Tiger will likely prove to be the best golfer in history from head to toe, but I am not sure he has yet bettered Jack between the ears).
But back to the point, the tree as a risk creator is a bit in-your-face. The more enjoyable option would be to see Tiger trying to decide whether or not to hit a 3 iron over the water. And the only way to do that at 15 is to make a shorter ball.
I am however, disheartened by the Nielsens. Given the strength of the numbers, I am likely to see more US Open clone setups at Augusta in the future.
The remainder of the major championship season looks to be particularly dismal this year. We have the US Open at Oakmont, a course that arguably lends itself to USGA penal setups more than any other in the rotation (I can still remember the watching the last US Open there, and viewing footage of a broadcaster gleefully demonstrating that a ball dropped on the back edge of one of the greens would roll all the way through the green and into the fairway.) The Open is Carnoustie, scene of some the worst train-wreck golf I've ever seen, and the PGA will be at Southern Hills, where we can have the pleasure of watching rock hard fairways and greens baking in the Oklahoma summer.
It might not be all bad though. If this trend continues, I may choose to spend future Masters weekends playing golf, leaving the viewing to those who enjoy it.
Keep the the length (or roll back the ball, preferably), and bring in Coore & Crenshaw to de-Fazio the place!
Next year would you take the time to watch a highlight video of Zach Johnson's play at this years' Masters?
I wouldn't.
Next year would you take the time to watch a highlight video of Tiger's play at the Open at Hoylake?
I would.
Why the difference? Because Hoylake allowed the champpion there to display his great talents. The Masters set up was a simple survival test that was won by very cautious play.
One draws people to the game. The other won't.
Both the "thrill of victory" and the "agony of defeat" are great things to watch I guess, but seeing birdies, eagles, and amazing shots is much more gratifying to me in the long run than watching pros tiptoe around the course trying to avoid getting flogged. It was so much like a US Open it was ridiculous, and I hope they cut down the blessed trees and restore it to what it once was.
Would I, ideally, want the course to play that hard? No, I wouldn't. For one thing, I think "US Open"-style setups don't actually identify the best players at all. But that's an argument for another day, and doesn't change the fact that I found this year's Masters to be compelling to watch. I'm not surprised the ratings were good.
Suffering? They're playing at Augusta in The Masters! Struggling? Par, despite its actual definition, is supposed to be a good score.
Clear exposure requires contrast. There were plenty of scoring and talent-exposing opportunities. Johnson's cautious strategy wouldn't have won the tournament if certain other players didn't lose their heads. The circumstances and conditions caused players to compete with themselves and exposed weaknesses to highlight the talents. Perhaps it's that inner competition that allows us to relate, and I don't think enjoying watching them win or lose that battle indicates ignorance or sadistic tendencies.
They get enough soft course setups on the PGA Tour, where John Brendle & Co. have been mandated by PVB to never put a hole location where it might make the entertainers look incompetant and set up 99 percent of the par-5s to be reachable by 90 percent of the field.
The Masters and other majors are optional. Playing in them is a privilege, not a right. Most players can still earn millions and never play a major and have a good old time throwing up double-digit red numbers at places like Warwick Hills.
If getting your ball around a major championship etup wasn't so difficult, then the honor accorded to major winners would be diminished.
4p