Terminology with which we, as amateur golfers and suckers for marketing, are all too familiar. It seems that, despite the debates raging amongst the professional ranks about the distances being hit on tour and what can be done, the club manufacturers are sticking to the tried and tested principle of producing the gear which promises to give you the 'missing' extra yards off the tee. The question I have is 'Is it worth it?'
For some weekend hackers, the promise of achieving the 300 yard drive is enough to lead them to part with their hard-earned cash year after year to buy the latest must-have driver. It seems that not a day goes by without an announcement by Callaway/Taylor Made/Titleist/Nike/etc/etc/blah/blah (delete as applicable) of their latest weaponry, lovingly (and expensively) endorsed by a famous golfing face, and promising to deliver the miracles for which you wish.
One of the things that grates with me, apart from the ever-changing equipment deal of the professional golfer, is the ever-increasingly ridiculous names that the manufacturers invent. I thought things couldn't get any more daft when Nike brought out a club called the Sasquatch. The name is absurd. What sort of qualification in marketing/product design do you need to have to create a link between a golf club and a mythical, seven-foot, hairy man-beast from the North American mountains? This was all very odd and, I suspect, the buying public agreed - the proof being the later incarnations of this series of drivers had the name changed to a more sensible-sounding SQ.
First, the name - the alternative, some would say relatively normal, name for the 'Turbo Testicles' range is the RBZ. That'll do just fine for me. Sorry, TM - I can't take the brand seriously when the name is so close to wedding vegetables.
The second, and more salient, point is the distance angle for the marketing. Clearly, this is the obvious line to go down, and I'm sure they will be very successful in terms of units shifted and $ in the coffers, but, in terms of growing the game of golf, I would like to see the emphasis on accuracy rather than length.
It's all very well being able to smash the ball 300yds+, but that will do you absolutely no good whatsoever if your next shot is from knee-deep cabbage. It would surely be better to sacrifice some distance off the tee for a higher % of fairways hit, no? Speaking from personal experience with this, prior to the Nike SQ driver I have been playing for nearly five years, I had a Titleist 975 J-VS. This club was one of the last to come out with the now-illegal high-COR hot face and the numbers that I could get from this stick were, frankly, wrong. Unfortunately, forgiveness wasn't high on the agenda and I spent a large part of my time tramping through the undergrowth to look for my tee shot. Switching to the Nike lost a chunk of distance off the tee, but now only the really bad swings end up with a lost ball and many more are in the right areas.
My concern is that the amateurs see the media obsession with distance and therefore assume that crushing the ball into the next county is a requirement to do well. This then manifests itself at driving ranges up and down the country where people spend their hours mindlessly bashing balls whilst short game practice areas and putting greens remain silent. I guess it's worth highlighting the short game stats of the current world #1, particularly compared to his average driving distance....
I will finish by asking you to remember the old adage - drive for show, putt for dough.
I am the Part-Time Golfer
No comments:
Post a Comment