Every sport has heroes and villains and the last two decades have shown that winning cures all. He has been on tour just short of 10 years and has built a pretty rock solid resume. Patrick Reed is good for golf.
Reed has 9 PGA Tour Victories. He is a major winner and has had a top 10 in every major and top 5 in 3 of the 4.
He is a good interview and says what’s on his mind.
He has had some brushes with the rules in the past, although I don’t believe yesterday was one of them.
So prove me wrong, Patrick Reed is good for golf.
Continue reading...
He has had success in tournaments, but that doesn't make him good for the game. He draws more crowds with the villain role, which he seems to relish. My rationale is the same for anyone with the brushes against the rules - if he wins by toeing the line (or outright breaking) the rules he will tacitly encourage others to do the same. If players feel they are losing a competitive advantage, they race to fill the void (see Bryson's bomb and gouge). How long before players feel they have to play looser with the rules to stay competitive?
One of the things I love about golf is at it's core it cares about integrity and honesty. How many other sports have people calling fouls on themselves? I don't like the precedent Patrick sets for those that come behind him and I believe he takes something special that has always existed about the game and tarnishes it.