Unpopular opinions you have about golf?

[StefanUrkel]

What are they? 

Mine.  Anyone that isn't over 5 ft 10 and ripped that wins is bad for golf.  There is nothing wrong with golf courses discriminating on who plays on their own course. 

[bkuehn1952]

In my opinion, your two opinions are baloney.

[Golfingdad]

31 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

In my opinion, your two opinions are baloney.

That's not going to be unpopular. ;)

[CarlSpackler]

Mine would be that the rules of golf are fine as is and that they should be followed. 

[ScouseJohnny]

1 hour ago, StefanUrkel said:

What are they? 

Mine.  

Anyone that isn't over 5 ft 10 and ripped that wins is bad for golf.  There is nothing wrong with golf courses discriminating on who plays on their own course. 

"Anyone that isn't over 5 ft 10 and ripped that wins is bad for golf."--------------> Yeah, whatever. I'm a sufficiently old bastard to remember being allowed to sit up late on my 12th birthday, back home in England, to watch a little, tubby, Welsh golfer called Ian Woosnam win the Masters. A young, skinny, unheard-of called Phil Mickelson won the amateur prize that year, by the way. I don't think Woosie's win was bad for golf, especially European golf.

"There is nothing wrong with golf courses discriminating on who plays on their own course."----------> That's bold and contentious of you."Ought private organizations be allowed to discriminate by gender, race, or any other factor of their choosing?" Welcome to Community College English 101. Rhetorical pro/con issue essays are due by mid-term.

Still:

Quote

Unpopular opinions you have about golf.

Mine:

1./ Apart from seismic shifts (e.g. blades being supplanted by cavity-backs for amateur golfers carrying a handicap higher than scratch), most "tech," when it comes to clubs, is just marketing bullshit. A typical mid-handicapper of today could score just as well with Ping Zing 2s as he could with Ping G30s.

2./ I can hit a draw or a fade in defiance of the "new" ball flight laws. Pros taught that way for years, it worked, golfers just didn't fully comprehend how they were doing what they were doing. What the young Assistant Pro in the bad check pants taught me all those years ago still actually works. The "new" explanation of the physics may be accurate, that doesn't mean the "old" instruction was entirely wrong.

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2016 by ScouseJohnny

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, StefanUrkel said:

What are they? 

Mine.  Anyone that isn't over 5 ft 10 and ripped that wins is bad for golf.  There is nothing wrong with golf courses discriminating on who plays on their own course. 

Wow - those are 2 doosies that are going to be hard to match.  I don't think I have anything that can compete with either of those.  Most of my opinions at least *somebody* agrees with, lol.  

I bet this is my most controversial/unpopular opinion about golf . .

We don't need to grow the game and no player, pro or otherwise, has the responsibility to help grow the game.  If they want to, fine - but to say somebody like McIlroy has a responsibility to help grow the game?  Rubbish.  

Besides - the game is just fine.  It doesn't need to be grown.  If we don't do anything to attract young people to golf young people will still be attracted to golf . .it won't fade away.  I do think we definitely need to *allow* golf to grow . .to make sure there are opportunities to play for those who want to .  but we definitely don't need to be fretting about what we need to do to attract new people who currently have no interest in the game. .especially stupid things like making the hole bigger or bifurcation, etc.  

[jsgolfer]

1 hour ago, StefanUrkel said:

What are they? 

Mine.  Anyone that isn't over 5 ft 10 and ripped that wins is bad for golf.  There is nothing wrong with golf courses discriminating on who plays on their own course. 

Neither of these two make sense.

1 hour ago, bkuehn1952 said:

In my opinion, your two opinions are baloney.

I'll second that! (+1)

[Hardspoon]

My unpopular opinions, both qualified with a "necessarily":

Golf course closings are not necessarily a bad thing for golf.

Declining participation in itself is not necessarily a bad thing for the golf.

[David in FL]

If your 4-some takes more than 3:30 to play 18 holes, you're part of the pace of play problem that plagues us today.

[chilepepper]

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

Wow - those are 2 doosies that are going to be hard to match.  I don't think I have anything that can compete with either of those.  Most of my opinions at least *somebody* agrees with, lol.  

I bet this is my most controversial/unpopular opinion about golf . .

We don't need to grow the game and no player, pro or otherwise, has the responsibility to help grow the game.  If they want to, fine - but to say somebody like McIlroy has a responsibility to help grow the game?  Rubbish.  

Besides - the game is just fine.  It doesn't need to be grown.  If we don't do anything to attract young people to golf young people will still be attracted to golf . .it won't fade away.  I do think we definitely need to *allow* golf to grow . .to make sure there are opportunities to play for those who want to .  but we definitely don't need to be fretting about what we need to do to attract new people who currently have no interest in the game. .especially stupid things like making the hole bigger or bifurcation, etc.  

    While it's a bit selfish I agree to an extent on growing the game. I'm very happy with the deals I find as golf courses compete for my money. 

Edited December 4, 2016 by chilepepper

[tdiii]

I think Brandel is a good analyst.

I think Tiger's chip yips are, sadly, not a thing of the past. 

[Patch]

My opinion on slow play is that it will always be a part of golf. Not much can be done about it, unless the game is changed to something that is totally different than what we have now

[Piz]

IMUO:  Golf is no more an elitist activity than drinking wine or bathing.  

[Marty2019]

13 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

Wow - those are 2 doosies that are going to be hard to match.  I don't think I have anything that can compete with either of those.  Most of my opinions at least *somebody* agrees with, lol.  

I bet this is my most controversial/unpopular opinion about golf . .

We don't need to grow the game and no player, pro or otherwise, has the responsibility to help grow the game.  If they want to, fine - but to say somebody like McIlroy has a responsibility to help grow the game?  Rubbish.  

Besides - the game is just fine.  It doesn't need to be grown.  If we don't do anything to attract young people to golf young people will still be attracted to golf . .it won't fade away.  I do think we definitely need to *allow* golf to grow . .to make sure there are opportunities to play for those who want to .  but we definitely don't need to be fretting about what we need to do to attract new people who currently have no interest in the game. .especially stupid things like making the hole bigger or bifurcation, etc.  

 

I agree with you.  The people who agonize over "growing the game" are the club manufacturers, the ball manufacturers, the golf course owners, people in the golf business.   They benefit from growing the game.   The people who suffer from growing the game are the people who play.   Growing the game just means the courses are more crowded with bad golfers.   That's my opinion. 

Do we really need so many different golf club manufacturers, basically making the same club?   Do we really need all these golf ball manufacturers?   Is there a serious difference in all these golf balls? 

And then I read articles about how the problem with golf is that it's too hard, that the solution is to make the hole bigger, or to change the rules.   I hate all these ideas about how to grow the game.  

Yes, we need serious young golfers coming up to keep the sport healthy, but the way to do that is to donate clubs to First Tee or something.   Get the youngsters to the driving range.   That's fine.   Grow the game organically, naturally, don't try to pump air into the thing with weird changes.   Leave it to grow naturally.  

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Marty2019

[Marty2019]

Okay, here's my unpopular opinion.   Golf is an elitist activity.   It takes time and money that a lot of people don't have.  That's why participation will inevitably skew towards older people who have time and money, and kids who have parents who can afford to buy them clubs and lessons.   And there's no way to avoid that.  

[boogielicious]

Golf spelled backwards is Flog. Coincidence? I think not.

[jkelley9]

As someone has said above that I agree with but probably most people don't agree with us:

Golf equipment "technology" isn't as game improving year-over-year nearly as much as people think it is. I believe I can pick up most sets of clubs, even without the correct length/flex/lie and still shoot a pretty darn close round to what I can with my own clubs. I even confirmed this by playing my old off-the-shelf(internet) cheapo clubs the other weekend with my 2 brothers and our father, sharing only 2 sets of clubs (in the evening when nobody else was playing). I played my old clubs for funsies and did just fine.

[Groucho Valentine]

Golf carts are the worst. They're good for business, but bad for the game.