While on vacation in Michigan, I played a round of golf, which I do a few times a year. I shot reasonably well, when you consider that it was my first round of the year, and it was pouring rain. I even birdied one hole, by chipping in from about thirty feet off the green, so go, me.
The course we were playing is a fancy club in a resort area, and so the rental clubs were nicer than the clubs I own. In particular, they had one of those oversize drivers, and now I understand how it is that people come to believe that there's no problem in golf that can't be solved by spending money.
I generally don't even bother trying to hit my own driver, because it's so erratic-- sometimes, I hit the ball a mile, sometimes it goes way left, sometimes way right, sometimes it pops up in the air and goes basically nowhere. I can't hit my three wood as far as I hit the driver on those occasions when I hit it well, but I hit it more consistently, so I mostly just leave the driver in the bag.
The rented oversize driver, though, was remarkably consistent. I didn't hit it straight, but it had an entirely predictable slice, and I could compensate by just aiming left a bit. It was really amazing, and I found myself thinking, "You know, if I just spent $600 on a club with a head the size of a watermelon, I could be pretty good at this game..."
And this is why basketball is superior to golf. The implied claims of Nike commercials aside, expensive sneakers are pretty much just sneakers, and other than that, all the equipment is common. Everybody shoots the same ball at the same hoop. Differences in results reflect differences in skill, not differences in sporting technology.
In golf, on the other hand, the game play can be influenced to a distressing degree by the particular clubs and balls you use. Which means that you can just about buy yourself a win, and that's just wrong.
Probably fifteen years ago, now, I remember a columnist for Sports Illustrated writing about this, and suggesting a Real Golf Championship. The players would all have to go to Wal-Mart and pick a set of clubs from the bargain bin, and play with used balls fished out of the water hazards. Then you'd see who could really play golf, and who was just taking advantage of technology.
- Log in to post comments
Well you don't think anybody at the Pro level actually pays for their equipment do you? Its all equal there. I like the idea of an old equipment league though. You see all these guys on the Senior tour these days hitting the ball as far as or further than they ever did 30 or 40 years ago. I also wonder about those nasty things - PED's. (drugs) No one tests golfers.
At the amateur level, yeah equipment helps, but a grooved swing helps more. After a few rounds you would lose your slice, and then you would be lost. Speaking as one who was playing great and had that happen to me, multiple times. Then I look at these 70 year olds who might only hit it 220 at the max and yet still get holes in one and score around 12 handicap, absolutely smooth.
Bicycling is another where equipment has made a difference. Drugs are the big topic, but Eric Zabel was saying he is as fast now almost as he was 15 years ago partly because of the bikes today. And of course Greg Lemond wo one of his tours because he used Aero bars and his opponent didn't in the last big Time trial. (Or at least some argue)
Same thing with tennis, right? I mean they still play on grass at Wimbledon... why not break out the wooden racquets, too??
Plus basketballs are tougher to break over your thigh when you make a bad shot..........Much cheaper that way.
No comparison. Golf is an effing game, basketball is a sport.
Dispite the improvements in the equipment, average handicaps in golf have not changed in 40 years. Equipment improvemnets mainly improve the balance sheets of the equipment manufacturers and the professionals who are paid big dollars to wear the brand. The real game in golf occurs between the ears and whether you are a +25 like me or a scratch golfer,there is plenty of room for pain and joy every day. Also at 61 I can play golf, hoops never.
actually, with regards to dr.dave's remark, going back to the smaller wooden racquets might not be a bad idea. I played a game not too long ago, switching back and forth between my old wooden racquet and a relatively new 'carbon fiber' thing. aside from the weight of the racquet, there is the size of the head, plus the vibration damping, huge sweet spot etc.
the difference in skill and strength required to use a wooden racquet vs. a modern one is not inconsiderable. the current high service speed, (and resulting number of aces) is largely due to the makeup of the racquet, rather than the makeup of the person holding it.
Precisely why I pretty much never golf anymore. Fishing's cheaper and you don't have to deal with other people if you don't want to.
There was an article in the [i]Washington Post[/i] recently about once of their sports writers taking a professional to the golf course in West Potomac Park, to see how he would do on a public course that isn't manicured to a fare-thee-well. He still did pretty well, but he got kind of frustrated at times.
There was an article in the [i]Washington Post[/i] recently about once of their sports writers taking a professional to the golf course in West Potomac Park, to see how he would do on a public course that isn't manicured to a fare-thee-well. He still did pretty well, but he got kind of frustrated at times.
I would say that the two games are intended to be completely different, so whichever one you consider superior will depend on what you want out of a sport.
I do admit that super-expensive, elite gear does make a difference in golf, but not as much a one as everyone thinks. Was your score that much lower thanks to those improved drives? I can't imagine more than a few strokes. As other commenters have mentioned, any sport that uses tools sees a similar effect. Even swimmers will spend hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands, on special suits designed to reduce resistance.