Parity Isn’t So Bad For Golf, Folks

A couple weeks ago I read Jamison Weiss’ commentary on The Sand Trap, another national golf blog, pertaining to his belief that parity is bad for professional golf. He even went so far as to use specific examples from other mainstream professional sports to drive home his points, along with five specific areas that “prove” his case. All-in-all, it was a well-written, well thought-out article that left me thinking about each of the five points for the next few days.

With all due respect to Weiss, however, I can’t help but disagree with a few of his points. Here is my take on each of the five areas of concern in the article.

Number Five: The Media

According to Weiss, media drives professional golf. “Merchandise sales and attendance at tournaments play a role, but a bulk of the money comes from television deals,” writes Weiss, and I agree with him on that. After all, one cannot argue with numbers; the media and television deals do play a larger role in terms of dollars than any individual product sponsor. However, this notion isn’t exactly rocket science, either.

What I disagree with, however, is that a big-time name like Tiger or Phil has to be on the front page of a newspaper or internet homepage in order for people to talk about golf. Sure; having either of those two guys succeed certainly helps drive attention to the game, but it is no longer necessary… and fans are proving this to be true. Names like Fowler, McIlroy, Donald, Scott and many others have already built their own fanbase and seem to drive discussion just fine.

Number Four: None of the Downsides

Weiss argues that today’s game of golf is lightyears ahead of the game “50 years ago”, however there is no “closer” in our modern game that can drive interest to golf. He even attempts to compare today’s group of players to that of a “closer by committee” baseball team who have a bunch of solid relief pitchers but no superstar who can come in and win the game. I could not disagree more.

The golfing world saw a phenom in Tiger Woods burst onto the scene and come as close to a “sure bet” each time stepped foot onto a golf course as we are probably ever going to get. If he was leading after 54 holes, he was likely to win the tournament. But golf doesn’t need that type of player in order to strive (or to appear “complete”, as Weiss suggests the TOUR needs). Furthermore, Weiss appears to contradict himself when suggesting that the wide range of talented players is somehow “bad” for the sport because there is no superstar, yet these “second-tier” players still make headlines that drive discussion among fans and the media.

The idea that golf needs a superstar is wrong; there are numerous stars on the PGA TOUR, for example, all of whom can win any given Sunday. How’s that for an NFL reference?

Number Three: No Greatness in Scrubs

This is just downright insulting to the majority of professionals on any TOUR. The article suggests that the era of Palmer/Nicklaus or Hogan before them were somehow of greater value to golf fans because of their dominance and ability to generate a story each and every week, win or lose. Today’s parity, according to Weiss, deprives golf fans the opportunity to see dominance and instead ushers in a steady diet of “players like Lucas Glover” winning majors.

What in the world is wrong with that? Frankly, I enjoy seeing a new major winner every so often; it helps drive home the point that these guys (and gals, on the LPGA) are attempting to achieve something they have dreamed of their entire lives. Are we to forego the possibility of seeing a man like Darren Clarke win his first major after all he has gone through in life just so we can instead see a multi-major winner hoist another trophy? I think not.

No greatness in scrubs? Give me a break.

Number Two: Outliers Drive the Sport

I can almost agree with this point, because Weiss isn’t saying anything monumental here: golf fans like to cheer for playing characteristics of their favorite players. Whether you enjoy watching Mickelson fire a shot around some trees or Camilio bending down in his Spider-Man pose, finding outliers to enjoy is fine by me as a fan of the game.

However, to suggest that parity – and the supposed “lack” of superstars – deprives the fans of these outliers is simply incorrect. The outliers still exist because that is the very meaning of the word “outlier”! Rickie Fowler has a small army of young fans wearing bright orange flat-bill hats each Sunday. Keegan Bradley has a small following of fans wearing ridiculous visors. Fans around the world come to watch Bubba Watson hit the ball a country-mile. People enjoy seeing Tommy “Two-Gloves” Gainey and his back-wrenching golf swing. The list goes on and on.

If you are unable to notice the vast number of outliers on any TOUR today, then you are simply not looking hard enough.

Number One: Golf Isn’t Football

Allow me to first declare that I have also compared professional golf to other sports in the past in an attempt to make a point.

Weiss suggests that other team sports like the National Football League have the benefit of city-based teams that large groups of fans can somehow relate to or “call their own”. Of course golf doesn’t have that… you know, because it’s an individual sport. Whatever.

The author also suggests that while a football fan can watch his team every single Sunday, no matter what, a golf fan might tune in to see a bunch of lesser-known names atop the leaderboard and be tempted to turn off the television. In other words, if a name like Johnson, Mickelson, Woods, Fowler, or Kuchar isn’t leading a tournament, then “even hardcore fans” aren’t going to watch.

All I have to say to that ridiculous notion is this: exactly how “hardcore” of a golf fan are you, then?

In closing, the suggestion that parity is somehow “bad” for golf is – in my mind at least – completely ludicrous. Instead, I would suggest that this era of parity and lack of a single, dominating player is incredibly exciting for golf. The unpredictability of the game has never been higher in my lifetime, and that makes tuning in to each tournament even more enjoyable than watching one player win by ten shots. Human emotion that is displayed on the face of a first-time winner will always supersede that of a guy who has won numerous times in the past.

Without parity, the opportunity to see something like that couldn’t possibly exist.