Kristian T

The Impact of Technology on Golf in the 21^st Century

Technology has been the source of controversy ever since it was conceived, from the battle of Hastings, to the industrial revolution, to automated assembly line, to bio-ethics. Wherever technology is used, heated debate can be found. Not surprisingly, the move pervasive technology presence in an area of human endeavor the more polarized the issue becomes. And nowhere in today’s world is this more evident than in sports. The technological changes of the past thirty years have impacted every competitive sport: Football, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Tennis, and certainly not least of all, Golf.

Golf may actually be the front line in battle over the role of technology in sports. It is probably the sport whose players can be most affected by the smallest changes. Proponents of technology often talk about how the improvements in areas of golf ball composition, club shaft and head materials, and club fitting have made the game more accessible and enjoyable to the millions of recreational golfers. Detractors often note technology’s impact on the purity of the game, the comparative value of old and new records, and lack of viability of sustainable growth—put another way, the impact of larger golf courses on the environment.

But the real problem is this: there may not be a right and wrong side to the issue, or even a middle ground. This may be a case in which everybody is right, and everybody is wrong. There may not be a side, there might only be the way things are done in Golf. This paper will explore the opposing viewpoints and assess where that leaves the sport today, and also make a few predictions concerning the future of Golf.

As in any debate on any issue, motive often becomes the deciding factor. However, given the limits of this paper. The reader might be best served to assume that self-interest does not make any particular position less valid. It is also recommended that the reader not blindly trust a position simply because one thinks well of the source.

Among those groups that wish to limit the use of technology in golf is the National Golf Course Owners Association (NGCOA). On November 30^th, 2004, the NGCOA released an official position on technology in golf. They contend that technology in club and ball manufacturing had made the golf less safe, environmentally unfriendly, and slower. It also argued that older courses could no longer pose a suitable challenge to the modern golfer and therefore raised the question of the validity of handicap assessment (Kelly, 2004).

The first part of the NGCOA’s position concerned safety, and stemmed from assessment that technology had produced a longer hitting golfer with a more spread out shot. Specifically, they argue that people were more likely to injure other golfers because the speed and range of the average shot had increased, as had the likelihood of hooking or slicing the ball. This tied into the second point, which was environmental impact. The NGCOA says that because of the increased safety concerns golf courses had to become larger and with more distance between the holes. This in turn meant the use of greater amounts of land, and use of chemicals on the land, thus increasing the potential negative impact on the environment and ecology of the surrounding areas of the courses. And lastly, more inaccurate shots, and larger distances to cover led to slower rounds as golfers waited for each other to be farther away before the next shot. The NGCOA also mentioned that the new safety standards required older courses to raise greens fees in order to cover the liability cost increases (Kelly, 2004).

Safety, the environment, speed, and costs aren’t the only arguments against the use of new technology in Golf, there are also the those who are concerned with the purity of the game. Many professional golfers have expressed that an essential aspect of the game is lost when the equipment can compensate for the skill level of the golfer. Jack Nicklaus has openly called for the standardization of the golf ball (Brimmer, 2006). The USGA also sees technology as having a negative impact on the art of golf, and that technology is stripping the game of many of its most appealing aspects (Murphy, 2006).

Nicklaus’ perspective considers that a ten percent distance reduction in average ball flight would go a long way to restoring the balance between the skill of the competitor and innate properties of modern clubs (Brimmer, 2006). Tiger Woods, though not seemingly a “purist” also wants changes to the PGA ball, “I’d like to see more spin added to the golf ball, so misses would be more pronounced and good shots more rewarded.” (Murphy, 2006) These more traditional arguments have another outspoken supporter, Dick Rugge, the Chief Technical Director of the USGA, who often cites the negative impact that technology had on Tennis and Bowling (Murphy, 2006). Essentially, he argues that raising the level of play through equipment also removed much of the challenge and spectator interest in those sports, and that it would likely have a similar impact on Golf.

It should also be made clear that Nicklaus, Woods, and the USGA are not alone in their positions. Many others also support the more traditional equipment positions, including Mike Small the 2005 PGA Club Professional Champion, and the PGA commissioner, Tim Finchman. Both of whom are confident in the regulations and the USGA’s ability to set appropriate rules (Murphy, 2006).

However, an equally large and equally powerful group feels that technology poses no threat to the integrity of the game. Many argue that even the opposite is true, that technology actually make everyday players less prone to the fickle twists of fate. Theses technological proponents feel that better equipment leads to more and more avid golfers, who become better golfers, with a deep and abiding love for the game.

Possibly first among the arguments that technology supporters will use is the statistics. Titleist released some equipment statistics to challenge the concept that big hitters get better advantage with the new technology. They claimed that between 2000-2005 the PGA’s shortest average hitter Corey Pavin and longest average hitter John Daly averaged only 1.3 yards difference. Titleist also argued that despite expressed opinion the position of the top 10 farthest drivers on the money list has actually gone down. (Rugge, 2005) Both sides used data comparing 1980-1985 with 2000-2005 and both sides also compared wound balls in the 1980’s versus solid golf balls for the 2000-2005 years.

Another argument that golf manufacturers challenge is the obsolescence of older courses due to technological advancement in golfing equipment. A commonly cited example of this perspective is the U.S. Open held at Baltusrol in Springfield, NJ in the years ’67, ’80, ’93, and ’05. The average score in ’93 was 72.109 and that was .345 strokes lower than the average score in ’05 (Johnson, 2005). Davis Love III concurs, saying that he still can’t hit the green from the Nicklaus plaque. He refers to Nicklaus’ famous 238 yard 1 iron shot onto the 18^th green in 1967. (Johnson, 2005) Of course it must be noted that course was extended 300 total yards to compensate for today’s drivers. Kenny Perry agrees that technology’s impact is probably overstated, saying that he’s hitting his approaches from about the same place he did in 1993 (Johnson, 2005).

Statistics are not the only argument technology supporters use to make their point. There is also the concept of the evolution of sport. Today’s quarterbacks aren’t throwing the same football or wearing the same pads as Johnny Unitas, nor is Jeff Gordon driving the same car as Richard Petty and these changes haven’t diminished the fan base of Football or NASCAR. And when comparing the old with the new, technology enthusiasts like to compare Ben Hogan’s average score of 69.8 in 1954 with Phil Mickelson’s 69.3 in 2005. Small differences like this demonstrate that technology isn’t ruining the game, say the supporters (Mathews, 2006).

But what does the average golfer think of the use of technological developments in golf equipment. According to a joint study of the National Golf Association and Nike Golf 59% of recreational golfers, 59% of PGA tour members, and 68% of LPGA tour members think the use of technology in golf equipment is a good thing (Murphy, 2006). And Ken Morton Sr. agrees, “Changes have benefited the average golfer even more than the tour professional. And I think that’s a wonderful thing.” (Murphy, 2006).

Well, what are those benefits exactly? Well, it’s almost agreed that the ball goes farther. The average golfer may now hit the ball farther but that doesn’t necessarily put it in the hole in a fewer number of shots. And we all know that Tiger Woods is not the average golfer. The average golfer is desperate for the three extra yards that will let him shoot a 97, according to Timm Mathews of Avid Golfer. If it is only about distance John Daly would be atop the leader board, Golf has been and continues to be about shot making, says Mathews.

And that last bit may be why the issue is so hotly contested. It may be that the real debate is, “What is golf about?” It may have nothing to do with technology’s impact on drive distance, or who’s on top of the money list. It may not be about golfer safety and environmental concerns. It may just be that a sport which is composed of its millions of individual players, all trying to accomplish millions of individual goals, lacks the cohesion necessary to agree about what the game should look like. Perhaps it isn’t the technology at all, perhaps it’s really the psychology.

Whatever one’s perspective at least one thing can be agreed. The debate is far from over.