We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Has pro golf lost it's flair and style?

dhartmann34 said:
Those old time guys were a lot of fun..... Most of the new guys are robots out there playing. You don't see a lot of personality on the course or even in interviews. Only a few select that stand out. I enjoy watching, but the interaction and fun that used to exist certainly is missing....But you can say the same thing about society in general.
Click to expand...

I mean come on now! REALLY!!
Who doesnt enjoy the heck out of watching Jason Day stare at the shot for 3 straght minutes! They just cant make anymore excitement than that!
 
I'm sorry, but this all just cracks me up.
 
blugold said:
Golf isn't as top heavy as it was in the 60s and 70s. The fields are deeper. That might be why some players seem to blend together, because there are more good players.
Click to expand...
I think this is a huge factor in it. There are plenty of personalities on Tour, you just see less of them because they ALL are really good and it's pretty much a revolving door at the top each week.
 
I still think the money has something to do with it. Guys are somewhat scared to be themselves for fear of losing endorsements. Which is totally understandable based on the crazy amounts of dinero out there.
 
Wicked Cool Bearded Man said:
I still think the money has something to do with it. Guys are somewhat scared to be themselves for fear of losing endorsements. Which is totally understandable based on the crazy amounts of dinero out there.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. In reality, a good player stands out because he's good. Look at Dufner. Nothing stylish about that dude. But he is awesome.

On the flip side, look at Ryan Moore. He stands out and gets a lot of attention for the way he presents himself on the course.
 
blugold said:
Yes and no. In reality, a good player stands out because he's good. Look at Dufner. Nothing stylish about that dude. But he is awesome.

On the flip side, look at Ryan Moore. He stands out and gets a lot of attention for the way he presents himself on the course.
Click to expand...

True. I guess I was thinking about how those older guys presented themselves off the course. Today it is much more buttoned up. I equate flair and style with the person as much as their golf I guess.
 
Wicked Cool Bearded Man said:
I still think the money has something to do with it. Guys are somewhat scared to be themselves for fear of losing endorsements. Which is totally understandable based on the crazy amounts of dinero out there.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that everything people say or do is analyzed in today's world.
 
Hawk said:
Not to mention that everything people say or do is analyzed in today's world.
Click to expand...

Right. It makes guys second guess themselves. Who wore those gawdawful squid or octopus pants a few years ago? That player hasn't done anything like that again...
 
Wicked Cool Bearded Man said:
Right. It makes guys second guess themselves. Who wore those gawdawful squid or octopus pants a few years ago? That player hasn't done anything like that again...
Click to expand...

I always think about NASCAR when it comes to these conversations. They went hugely commercial in the 2000's and a result of that was the idea that the drivers were basially cookie cutter walking advertisements and people complained. Then, when guys acted like they wanted (fighting, outspoken, etc) they were crapped on in the media, by fans, and their sources of income. Nobody knows what the hell they want anymore.
 
Hawk said:
I always think about NASCAR when it comes to these conversations. They went hugely commercial in the 2000's and a result of that was the idea that the drivers were basially cookie cutter walking advertisements and people complained. Then, when guys acted like they wanted (fighting, outspoken, etc) they were crapped on in the media, by fans, and their sources of income. Nobody knows what the hell they want anymore.
Click to expand...


This was one of the first things I thought of when opening this thread. I used to love to watch the races back in the 70's and 80's when the drivers were drivers first. Then NASCAR got huge and the drivers became pitchmen first and drivers second. I have since lost interest in the sport and rarely watch now.
 
blugold said:
Other than Chi Chi, you just named multiple major winners. I bet you would recognize Phil, Tiger, Ernie, Rory, and Padraig. The best players are the most memorable. Other than Chi Chi, who was famous for doing that sword thing after a birdie putt.

Golf isn't as top heavy as it was in the 60s and 70s. The fields are deeper. That might be why some players seem to blend together, because there are more good players.
Click to expand...

I gotta be honest. I am all about golf history, but I thought Miller only won the '73 U.S. Open. Never knew he won the '76 British, and I've never seen any replays of it on TGC. Do they know he won it? hehehe
 
I have to agree with blugold. Back in the day you saw all the guys mentioned because they were the best and got all the airtime. Thing is, if Chi Chi were on the tour now he would get ridiculed for acting like an idiot. Back when he was on Tour people loved it because it was different. Sadly I think the game has been policed too much by "leaders" on the various Tours. They want guys to "act like true professionals" and almost not have a personality. The guys today that stand out are because they have a homemade swing, because of the way they dress, or because of winning.

Camilo Villegas was well known because of how he reads greens, but he's basically gone. Fowler is well known because of his hair and wacky colors. Bubba because of how far he hits the ball, his swing, he's left handed...that's even before the Masters win. Phil because of winning and being left handed. Tiger is Tiger.

The bigger issue is Tour has is bringing the casual golfer to watch an event when Tiger isn't playing. Sadly that isn't happening outside of the majors. I don't think that if Chi Chi, Arnie, or Jack were playing today that they would be the standout personalities they were back when they played. This is a great topic.
 
Smallville said:
I gotta be honest. I am all about golf history, but I thought Miller only won the '73 U.S. Open. Never knew he won the '76 British, and I've never seen any replays of it on TGC. Do they know he won it? hehehe
Click to expand...

Johnny knows he won it. He'll tell you all about how much of an achievement it was.
 
It seems to me- they're all on anti depressants!
 
blugold said:
Johnny knows he won it. He'll tell you all about how much of an achievement it was.
Click to expand...

As much as he is full of himself, reading about it, it was an accomplishment. Two shots down going into the last round and winning by six. He really was pretty effing good for a while there. 13 top tens in majors over eight years is not too shabby. It looks even better when you see that he sucked in the PGA Championship, so that was 13 top tens in 24 majors not including that one!
 
tgtt said:
I think once Tiger and Phil move on there will be dark days for professional golf if another dominate player or two don't take their place. Rory, Fowler, Speith, and maybe a few others can carry the torch if one of them starts dominating or two of them do and make for an awesome rivalry.
Click to expand...

I think there is some merit to that, but Tiger is still young, and wants the Majors record, so I think we have another 15 - 20 of Tiger on the PGA Tour, before that comes around. As for Phil, I think he's got around 10 years left, then he'll make his rounds on the Champions Tour and he'll CLEAN UP there.

My guess is someone will come around within that time frame that will be just as powerful to the game. It seems to be a generational player, Hogan, Snead...Jack and Arnie...now Tiger. Time will tell who will be next.

So for flair and style out there now...I think there is a LOT. The way most players are on Tour now, if you're not standing out, you're blending in and you don't make the SIDE money (big sponsorships, commercials...etc....) by blending in. I think most of the younger guys on Tour have this figured out, and most OEM's know this too. You watch, in the next 5 to 10 years, things on Tour will heat back up I bet.
 
Smallville said:
As much as he is full of himself, reading about it, it was an accomplishment. Two shots down going into the last round and winning by six. He really was pretty effing good for a while there. 13 top tens in majors over eight years is not too shabby. It looks even better when you see that he sucked in the PGA Championship, so that was 13 top tens in 24 majors not including that one!
Click to expand...

He was really really good. He speaks of himself like he was really really great.
 
I think there are guys out there that still stand out for their distinctive swing alone, Furyk, Bubba, Tommy Gainey are few that come to mind. Camilo Villegas definitely has style although he doesn't win much. The casual fan sees such a small sample of the guys on tour but those that are die-hards and watch a lot of the Golf Channel and the early rounds of tournaments get to know a lot more of the players.
 
Blu, I totally agree with what you and others have said. There are some truly great players out there on tour now. It was never my intent to say otherwise but as also has been said. They are all pretty much the same in personality, sure Keegan and Duffner and a few others do have some personality but as someone said I guess it about the memories of youth being larger than life watching these guys. I love watching Jim and his homemade swing, bubba does have a bit of personality and can shape the ball like few others but to me it is just not the same. Like I said I guess it is just days gone by syndrome lol.
 
I guess, I don't know what else you could want from tour golfers. They are all individuals that go about things differently.

Also keep in mind that in the 50s and 60s, a good amount of guys on tour were course pros and not full time tour professionals.

It's a business like never before. But with the advent of twitter, it is much easier to be close to these guys.
 
Another thing I'm not sure if touched on already here but is that "back in the day" (so to speak) we didn't readily have the amount of golf available to view on TV in the first place. With nothing but network TV we were very limited. This by default made for a greater appreciation of it when it was on TV.

Its sort of like Monday night football. "back in the day" before cable, and before the ability to watch whatever games we want, before Sunday night and before Thursday night, etc.. Monday night was huge. It was the only time you got to se other teams besides your local area teams play with very little exception. But with all the other stuff I just mentioned making football much more readily available and much more widely covered, Monday night lost a lot of its character and is just not as appreciated by the average football fan as it once was. It was a big deal to get together with buddies and go watch MFL. Todays generation of that same relative age group now doesn't look at that (only by default) with quite the same appreciation. A percentage still does what we did but not nearly close to the same amount.

Basically, the more of something (anything) that we have around, the more we take it for granted and less its appreciated and also becomes not as big of a deal as when it was around much less often. Can even make it a bit boring perhaps too. This probably has something to do with (among other reasons) why some feel golf was more enjoyable back then too.
 
What I think is that in today's generation of pro sports, not just golf...they're all players. Very few at the professional level of any sport did something else before being a professional athlete/sportsman. They started the game when they were little, played through high school, college, and into the professional ranks. That path was never waylaid by military service, or a regular job, or anything else. You say modern golfers don't have much personality. I ask where are they supposed to get personality from? Lee Trevino and Chi-Chi Rodriguez put in time in the military. Rodriguez compared golf as easy work relative to a day harvesting sugar cane.

For the modern pro, golf isn't a game they happen to get paid to play. It's work. While there are exceptions, like Bubba, Fowler, Poulter, and a few others, I think most of the pros ranked between 11 and 100 regard golf as accounting they get to do outdoors. It's work. It's not really "fun." Pays the bills and put them through college. It's not really their fault if they feel that way. They just haven't had to do scut work the way many of their predecessors did. There's enough money in golfing, enough scholarships, and everything else that they don't have to. But the downside is personality, flair, horsing around, rubber snakes, swashbuckling your putter, is a product of fun, and fun is relative. To a guy who has never done anything else, golf isn't a whole lot of fun unless you're winning. To someone who knows if he wasn't getting paid to swing a golf club he'd be digging ditches for 10 hours a day and barely able to afford a set of golf clubs on his pay, 18 holes is a walk in the park.
 
Last edited:
Paladin said:
What I think of is that in today's generation of pro sports, not just golf...they're all players. Very few at the professional level of any sport did something else before being a professional athlete/sportsman. They started the game when they were little, played through high school, college, and into the professional ranks. That path was never waylaid by military service, or a regular job, or anything else. You say modern golfers don't have much personality. I ask where are they supposed to get personality from? Lee Trevino and Chi-Chi Rodriguez put in time in the military. Rodriguez compared golf as easy work relative to a day harvesting sugar cane.

For the modern pro, golf isn't a game they happen to get paid to play. It's work. While there are exceptions, like Bubba, Fowler, Poulter, and a few others, I think most of the pros ranked between 11 and 100 regard golf as accounting they get to do outdoors. It's work. It's not really "fun." Pays the bills and put them through college. It's not really their fault if they feel that way. They just haven't had to do scut work the way many of their predecessors did. There's enough money in golfing, enough scholarships, and everything else that they don't have to. But the downside is personality, flair, horsing around, rubber snakes, swashbuckling your putter, is a product of fun, and fun is relative. To a guy who has never done anything else, golf isn't a whole lot of fun unless you're winning. To someone who knows if he wasn't getting paid to swing a golf club he'd be digging ditches for 10 hours a day and barely able to afford a set of golf clubs on his pay, 18 holes is a walk in the park.
Click to expand...

Interesting view. I can agree with a lot of that. I think some the other major sports don't quite fit though. At one time yes but its been very many decades since most the athletes in those sports didn't spend most their lives in the sport. However the amounts of money (as you also mention) changing hands today is what is so staggering vs back then. Even though the money made was worth much more per dollar it still (even when considering inflation) is dwarfed vs what they make today. That (similar to what you are saying) perhaps leads to some less fun overall and has simply taken that something extra special we cant quite put a finger on from the sport.

Even jack who didn't leave the game all that that very long ago (depending how you view it) earned between 5 and 8 million playing from what I can find and that was a whole career. Tiger has made 8mill in this year alone. A staggering difference. Just think about that for a second. Its kind of sad in many ways.

But as you say and like in other sports too, Joe Namath for example made less in his whole playing career than quarterbacks make in just one game. Signed for $427,000 for 4 years which was a record unheard of and over the top back then vs the top quarterbacks today are getting 50 million in the same 4 years. They earn in the first half of one game what Namath earned in four years. Just some crazy stuff when you think about it.
 
rollin said:
Interesting view. I can agree with a lot of that. I think some the other major sports don't quite fit though. At one time yes but its been very many decades since most the athletes in those sports didn't spend most their lives in the sport. However the amounts of money (as you also mention) changing hands today is what is so staggering vs back then. Even though the money made was worth much more per dollar it still (even when considering inflation) is dwarfed vs what they make today. That (similar to what you are saying) perhaps leads to some less fun overall and has simply taken that something extra special we cant quite put a finger on from the sport.

Even jack who didn't leave the game all that that very long ago (depending how you view it) earned between 5 and 8 million playing from what I can find and that was a whole career. Tiger has made 8mill in this year alone. A staggering difference. Just think about that for a second. Its kind of sad in many ways.

But as you say and like in other sports too, Joe Namath for example made less in his whole playing career than quarterbacks make in just one game. Signed for $427,000 for 4 years which was a record unheard of and over the top back then vs the top quarterbacks today are getting 50 million in the same 4 years. They earn in the first half of one game what Namath earned in four years. Just some crazy stuff when you think about it.
Click to expand...

I think that plays into it a lot, as well. When money was comparable between a pro athlete and a more "conventional" job, the guys who got into it had, shall I say, a bit of a screw loose. We don't think of a long-haul trucker and a pro golfer as being similar jobs, but once upon a time, they were. Good but not great pay, hours on the road, never entirely sure where the next decent check was coming from. Anything on the planet that got you more recognition was a good thing, so personality mattered. No such thing as bad press. Some of that is because there was far less press, far less scrutiny. There were simply more hardscrabble guys on the tour. These days, yeah, maybe personality matters. But there's a formula to success, just like a golf swing has gone from the sort of thing you figured out swatting at tin cans to something that's analysed by a computer. A guy like Rickie or Bubba finds a bit more money or notoriety by being the way they are, but there's too many guys punching hefty meal cards by being...golfers...to really say that personality is that important. Lee Westwood? Ernie Els? Matt Kuchar? I could tell Darren Clarke from most other golfers, provided he's smoking at the time. Unless your sponsors think there's money is being yourself, there's too much money in being just...a golfer...to deviate very far from the script.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top