Golf Does Not Need Tiger Woods To Save It

Written by: Tony Korologos | Monday, March 16th, 2015
Categories: Golf • Golf For Women • Miscellaneous
Tags: Golf Industry • Tiger Woods

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 1.33.25 PM I can’t take much of this idiocy anymore. The article “Golf Needs Tiger Woods To Save A Sport That Is In A Downward Spiral” on the website Atlanta Blackstar (never heard of it until today) is a triple bogey, including a shank out of bounds. It is a rehash of a theory which has more holes than the courses at Pinehurst.

Golf does not need Tiger Woods to save it.

It is not up to Tiger Woods to “save a sport that is in a downward spiral,” nor is it his job.

Author Chris Bunn writes of the decline in viewership and attendance at PGA Tour events which coincides with Tiger Woods’s absence and struggles. Fair enough. I agree. Chris writes that since Tiger Woods came into the picture PGA Tour purses have skyrocketed, making many Tour players would-be millionaires. I’ll give him that too. Yes, thanks to Tiger’s popularity the PGA Tour and the media outlets that cover it had a hell of a run.

Chris says golf is in a downward spiral, and Tiger is the one to save it. There are so many ways this is wrong I can’t begin to count them all. Chris has lumped apples and oranges into one basket and is calling them all apples. The apples are the PGA Tour and the media who cover it, and the oranges consist of the people who play the game, buy the equipment, book tee times, and travel to golf destinations.

The argument against my previous statement is that there’s so much more “exposure” to the game when Tiger plays or is winning tournaments. That exposure means more “awareness” for the game and would therefore translate to the entire industry and its bottom line. That sounds great except for the fact that golf was declining during a period in which Woods was excelling. Tiger just caught up to it.

Further, who exactly are those fringe viewers who will only watch when Tiger is playing? Are they actual golfers? Or are they fly-by sports fans just flipping channels on the weekend who tune in if they happen to notice that Tiger is playing? Back in the years of Michael Jordan I would tune in and watch basketball, though I had no interest in the Chicago Bulls or the NBA. I didn’t go down to Dick’s sporting goods and buy a basketball, and I didn’t join my local rec league after watching him play. I watched Jordan because he was the best.

The sport of golf existed 1,400 years before Tiger Woods was born, and barring the earth being destroyed or human civilization wiping itself out in the next 40-50 years, golf will exist after Tiger is dead.

It is my not-so-humble opinion that Tiger Woods has little to no effect on the “sport” of golf. The effect he has is on viewership, not participation. Whether Tiger plays, doesn’t play, plays well, doesn’t play well, is in the field, is not in the field, has X-Majors, breaks Jack’s record, doesn’t break Jack’s record… has no bearing on whether I play golf, where I play golf, or what money or time I decide to put into playing golf.

In his article Mr. Bunn cites that TaylorMade Golf’s revenues are down some 28 percent. It would seem that the implication there is that if Tiger was “back,” TaylorMade’s sales would not be hurting? I don’t think so. TaylorMade’s sales are down because the economy is down, people don’t have the extra cash for a 12th driver, and the company releases a new golf club every 42 seconds. Golf equipment buyers finally hit the wall and Tiger’s status will not change that or give them more expendable money.

In his article Mr. Bunn cites “Young people—that coveted 18-to-30 demographic—playing golf has fallen an incredible 35 percent over the last decade.” So am I to conclude that if Tiger was playing better or more often this demographic would suddenly want to golf more? I don’t think so. They’re too busy posting selfies on Instagram.

Chris writes:

“If, by some amazing reversal, Wood is in contention on Sunday, golf executives around the country would be kissing his spikes. He moves the interest meter like no one in sports has since Michael Jordan.”

Yeah, right. And who is “Wood” anyway? I can see the conversation between golfers on the first tee now:

Fred: “Hey Bob did you hear Tiger is back? He won last week!”
Bob: “Yup! I sure did. Watched the whole tournament. Since Tiger won I’m off to buy the latest TaylorMade driver. After that I’m going to put a down payment on a new lot for a home I’m going to build on a golf course.”

Yeah. That happens all the time.

When I go to my home courses they’re packed with golfers if the weather is good. We are there to golf. We are there for the sport, the competition, the camaraderie. We are not there because of anything Tiger Woods does or does not do. When I buy a new driver, I buy it because I have disposable income and I think the driver will help my game. I don’t buy it because Tiger won last week or is playing well. I will not be buying golf real estate based on how many FedEx Cup points Tiger has.

Yes The “Industry” Is In Decline

I’ll agree the golf “industry” is in decline. Equipment sales are dropping. Courses are going bankrupt. Why? Here are a few reasons:

Golf is expensive
Golf is difficult
Golf takes too much time
The golf industry (courses, manufacturers, media, marketing companies, golf real estate) over-expanded and over-saturated

In the digital, millenial, instant self-gratification world we live in golf is never going to be what those previously mentioned “golf executives” thought it would be in the golf bubble of the 2000’s. In that period, like many other industries, golf over-expanded. TaylorMade overexpanded. Golf courses over expanded and now are trying to figure out how to pay for the 100,000 square foot “wedding and banquet” facilities, and the $60,000 fountain in front of the clubhouse. It does look nice, even though they had to fire half the maintenance crew and let half of their greens die because of it.

They all went through the buffet a few too many times. All that’s left now is dessert and a few wilted brown lettuce leaves, and that one piece of black olive that’s between the olive bowl and the croutons. The industry is resetting to a level which is more reasonable, and more sensible. The buffet is gone. It’s Top Ramen time for a while, but golf will survive and might just end up better than it was when Tiger won his 14th major in 2008.

The “sport” of golf lives on and will live on. Take a trip to Scotland and watch entire families play the game. Watch two young teens putt on the Himalayas on their first date. Look a few feet ahead of them to the couple in their 80’s who have been married for 60 years, and still have that nightly match and a wee nip of scotch. None of them are on the course because of Tiger Woods. Take a look at my Sunday “money game.” We’re there to take that damn two bucks we lost last week after than awful 3-putt on the 18th. We golf to breath some fresh air; take a nice walk. We golf for the challenge. We golf for that all too seldom time when we “hit the screws” on our drivers and the ball goes 40 yards farther, and we can humiliate our friends a.k.a. opponents.

I don’t golf because of Tiger Woods. I golfed before he hit the scene and I’ll golf long after he leaves the scene… if I’m still alive.

Golf Short Game Tip: Use No-Chipping Sign as Target When Practicing Chipping

Written by: Tony Korologos | Monday, March 16th, 2015
Categories: Boneheads • Golf • Hackers • How Not To • Instruction
Tags: Short Game

Use No-Chipping Sign as Target When Practicing Chipping

While at the practice putting green last week I found a golfer there practicing his chipping. After watching him for a few minutes I realized the brilliance of what he was doing. He was using the “no chipping” sign as part of his chipping practice. He positioned his landing spot to be just over the no-chipping sign, and he would try to chip in such a way that the ball would land just over it, then release nicely to the hole.

I highly recommend using the no-chipping sign as a golf training aid when working on chipping. I’ve used the no-chipping sign for my short game drills ever since and I’ve noticed quite an improvement in my short game stats.

First Look: $121 ScoreBand Golf GPS Watch

Written by: Tony Korologos | Thursday, March 12th, 2015
Categories: Golf • Golf Accessories • Golf Equipment • Golf For Women • Golf Gear
Tags: Golf GPS • ScoreBand

Along with my testing of a reasonably priced $173 golf laser rangefinder by ScoreBand, I’m testing the ScoreBand Golf GPS Watch and Scorecard. This unit runs $129 at retail (very reasonably priced) and serves as a golf GPS and wrist mounted golf scorekeeper. I found this golf GPS watch for $121 on Amazon.

ScoreBand Golf GPS Watch – click to buy

I’m not big on wearing watches and GPS watches tend to be bigger than normal watches. I just mount the unit to my bag most of the time. With the unit conveniently located on my golf bag I can look at the numbers and grab a club quickly and easily.

Features Courtesy of the ScoreBand Website

Auto-detects nearest course
Yardage to Front, Back and Center of Green
Yardage to hazards
Quick-Score scorecard for each course
Stores up to 10 rounds
Shot distance measurement
Easy software upgrades
Long-life rechargeable battery 8-10 hours in GPS mode / up to 4 weeks in power-save mode
2 hours to fully recharge (DC)
3ATM Water Resistance
Screen 90 x 90 pixels for easy viewing
GPS accurate time and date
Uses industry leading u-blox GPS chipset

Pre-Loaded Course Database

NORTH AMERICA + BRAZIL
UK/EUROPE/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND/SOUTH AFRICA

I have a few more testing rounds to go, but so far so good on the ScoreBand GPS watch. Solid so far. Stay tuned for my full review.

I Propose a New Golf Iron Naming Scheme Which Golf Marketers and Some Manufacturers Will Hate

Written by: Tony Korologos | Wednesday, March 11th, 2015
Categories: Boneheads • Golf • Golf Clubs • Golf Equipment • Golf Gear
Tags: golf clubs • Golf Marketing

Why is your brand new shiny pitching wedge as long as your old 8-iron? Because it IS an 8-iron.

Hot off the presses is the announcement that TaylorMade just came out with a new set of irons. Kind of a bummer really. I hadn’t even taken off the plastic off the set I bought yesterday and now they’re already obsolete, due to these new LONGER ones which came out today. Now the question is, do I buy the new ones from today knowing that tomorrow’s model will be even better and longer? I poke fun, but that’s the sad state of the golf equipment industry.

Comparing mid 1990’s iron specs to the new TaylorMade Aeroburner 2015 irons.

Golf marketing has completely bastardized the equipment world. Marketers will go to great “lengths” to sell clubs. Most of the manufacturers and their marketing firms are guilty of falling into the trap of promising more and more distance, not just TaylorMade. Marketing will continue this practice so long as the consumer believes he/she will gain more distance.

Take a look at the photo above. It compares iron specifications up to the mid 1990’s with the new TaylorMade “Aeroburner” irons.

Some golfers seem to be aware that the lofts are getting stronger year after year, but most don’t seem to notice shaft length. In the photo above look at the old pitching wedge as an example. The 1990’s model PW was 52 degrees, and had a 35 inch shaft. The Aeroburner 2015 pitching wedge is 43 degrees! NINE degrees stronger. But that’s not all. Look at the shaft length. The new PW is the same length as what an 8-iron used to be.

A good friend of mine was so excited when he bought his RocketBalls irons a while back. “I hit my 7-iron as far as my old 5-iron,” he excitedly told me. Once I explained that his new 7-iron and old 5-iron were the almost the same specs he wasn’t as excited. In fact, he was mad.

Name Irons By Lofts/Lengths

The new Ben Hogan has started doing this a bit, though I’ve had this concept in my mind for years. Either the numbers representing irons should have a fixed area in the spec table, or the numbers should be removed from the club and replaced with the loft and shaft length. That way when comparing clubs, one could only claim to be longer against other clubs with the same specs.

“Hand me the 46!”

So, the TaylorMade 5-iron above would be called a “22” for 22 degrees in loft. Perhaps add a 38.75 to the name: 22-38.75. The closest club in the 1990’s chart above would be between a 2-3-iron, but the shaft length closer to a 1-iron.

Limit Loft/Length Ranges for Iron Numbers

As an alternative there should be limits as to what numbers can be put on what clubs should be put in place. In another 5-10 years at the pace we are on, a pitching wedge will be 20 degrees, and we will all be hitting them 200+ yards.

It would be a good idea to have rules in place stating something like “A 7-iron is a club which features a loft between (pick your numbers) 34-37 degrees and would include a shaft length between (once again, pick your numbers) 36-37 inches.”

Why the Gap Wedge Appeared and Why We Will Need More of Them

Of course, neither of my ideas above will happen. So irons will get stronger and stronger. The distance between a lob wedge, usually a 60 degree club, and a pitching wedge will increase. That’s why the “gap” wedge was invented. The gap wedge filled the growing gap between pitching wedges and sand wedges and gave golf club manufacturers another club to sell.

We are going to need another gap wedge. Let’s call it a gap gap wedge.

First Look: $173 Golf Laser Rangefinder by ScoreBand

Written by: Tony Korologos | Wednesday, March 11th, 2015
Categories: Golf • Golf Accessories • Golf Equipment • Golf For Women • Golf Gear • Miscellaneous • Site News
Tags: Golf Laser Range Finder • Leupold • ScoreBand

Here’s a first look at a new $189 (retail) $173 (street) golf laser rangefinder by the company ScoreBand. I reviewed a ScoreBand product a couple of years ago, a small wrist watch style golf score keeper. Yesterday I did my first round of testing the new ScoreBand PULSE Compact Golf Laser Rangefinder and I was quite impressed.

ScoreBand Laser Rangefinder – click to buy

Though it was only my first round with the unit, I found it to be nice and compact and easy to use. The yardages locked in quickly and were consistent, unlike other lasers I’ve tested. A friend in my group was using a Leupold laser rangefinder and the yardages from the Pulse were always within one yard of that unit, which cost him $499.

I’m still testing but so far I dig this unit. Stay tuned for my full review soon.

Older posts

Newer posts

« Previous 1 … 45 46 47 48 49 … 59 Next »