The Changing of the Guard

[PatrickMurtha]

I am new here, so please bear with me. I am also a fan rather than a golfer, perhaps a rare bird in that way, and I undoubtedly miss some technical nuances because of that.

But my subject is more general here. This past weekend felt like a little bit of a turning point to me. With Tiger embarrassing himself, with Phil missing the cut in Phoenix also, with fresh face Brooks Koepka winning there and Rory winning against a strong field in Dubai, it seemed that more than ever, we are seeing a changing of the guard. I have been noticing for weeks that young golfers are making themselves felt in almost every tournament. Between the two important tournaments this week, there were 14 players who made the Top 20 whose birth-years are 1988 or later:

1988    Morten Orum Madsen, Danny Willett

1989    Rory McIlroy, Peter Uihlein (and up-and-comer Tony Finau finished T22 in Phoenix as well)

1990    Brooks Koepka

1991    Byeong-hun An

1992    Emiliano Grillo, Hideki Matsuyama, Gary Stal

1993    Daniel Berger, Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas

1994    Jon Rahm

1996    Renato Paratore

This is happening a lot, almost every week in fact. I think it is very exciting. But it seems to be an under-reported story. Instead, the golf media focuses predictably on the ups and downs of Tiger and Phil.

Look, I get this. Those guys have been the bread-and-butter of the sport for a long while. As they fade, there will be (already are) adjustment pains. I can understand golf writers who have a problem letting go, even those who might feel their livelihoods are being threatened.

BUT - it is in those same writers' best interests to promote the new generation for all it is worth. Because these players will be around for a long time after Tiger and Phil have receded. How many articles and columns can be written about whether Tiger has another comeback in him? If he does, we will all see it, and it will be reported to death. But until such time, it is becoming boring to hear about, and the inches of writing wasted there might be better spent on the new generation.

Tiger's shocking travails were naturally the #1 story in golf these past few days. A couple of more tournaments of the same, that will continue to be the story. But after that - life moves on, don't you think? We can always shine the spotlight on Tiger or Phil again when they earn it, and in the meanwhile, there are dozens of fresh stories waiting to be told.

[Lihu]

Welcome to TST.

This was a very informative post. I certainly will look forward to more posts from you.

I think age has a lot to do with it. 40+ year old golfers will always have a hard time competing with 20-30 somethings in any strenuous physical activity.

Unfortunately, the champions tour has a cutoff of 50 years. So, there might be a gap in a players playing career.

It would be interesting to see what kind of waiting time gap there is between the end of the PGA Tour and the start of the Champions Tour of all the players. Other than Miguel Angel Jimenez, of course.

[PatrickMurtha]

Welcome to TST.

This was a very informative post. I certainly will look forward to more posts from you.

I think age has a lot to do with it. 40+ year old golfers will always have a hard time competing with 20-30 somethings in any strenuous physical activity.

Unfortunately, the champions tour has a cutoff of 50 years. So, there might be a gap in a players playing career.

It would be interesting to see what kind of waiting time gap there is between the end of the PGA Tour and the start of the Champions Tour of all the players. Other than Miguel Angel Jimenez, of course.

Absolutely true. On the one hand, I think that because of better conditioning (not that that applies to Jimenez!), there will perhaps be more noteworthy victories by post-40s and post-50s than before; on the other hand, there are just TOO MANY hungry young golfers who are superb athletes.

In most sports, writers would not want to spend too much time talking about the "old guard," because that might get them pegged as olf fogies themselves. But golf is an exception, perhaps because the fan base for professional golf skews much older than other sports. Nonetheless, I would so much rather read stories about the 14 golfers I listed above than another story about Tiger or Phil (and I adore Phil). Rory and, lately, Jordan Spieth get a lot of press; Patrick Reed, too, for somewhat different reasons. But many other young golfers are lucky to get noticed EVEN WHEN THEY WIN. You look at Golf.com's weekly roundtable "Tour Confidential," and many's the time that week's winners have been barely mentioned, or even not at all, while the panel launches into yet another round of speculation on Tiger's swing changes, chances in the next major, etc.

That brings me to another problem, common to all sports coverage since the advent of ESPN 35 years ago, which is that SO MUCH of the coverage is actually speculation (because there is so much time to fill). In golf, I'd say there is about 20% reporting on what happened, 10% or less analysis of what happened, and 70% or more speculation about what WILL happen (and those predictions are NEVER re-visited when the events actually occur, lest some writer be made to look bad). Ah well, it's the nature of "news" today, and I suppose there is no help for it.