Golf's Digital Divide

theodp writes "Are $50,000 simulators and $4,500 sensor vests driving a wedge between golf's haves and have-nots? That's the question posed by the WSJ, who reports that a new generation of expensive high-tech tools is stoking a costly arms race among golfers looking for an edge in a sport that already has an elitist reputation."

Comments

Golf sucks anyway

[dbitch]

Someone had to say it first....

O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe this is the tragedy that the submission of this story implies. It is unfortunate that such equipment is inaccessible to everyone, but if nothing else, isn't a sport striving for greatness? I see training as a different sort of advantage than say, steroid use. Ultimately, no tool will replace hard work; a professional golfer, regardless of income, must work for success.

If we draw a line based on income, what else does that set a precedent for? Genetics can also provide an advantage; how should that be resolved? What about in other situations? Do I want my doctor to have inferior training than another, because having access to expensive training tools gives him an 'unfair' competitive edge in the health market?

Oh boo hoo!

[Five Bucks!]

Golfer have-nots?!

At a cost of $60 for green fees (the lowest around here), the wedge between golfing "Haves" and "Have-nots" begins before you even reach the gilded gates of the course. Add in golf-cart and clubs, plus drinks afterwards, it's easy to drop $120 to go golfing.

Phooey...

As a golfer

[hsmith]

who fucking cares. who cares if some guy on another hole has some $50,000 machine to practice on. it doens't impact me in the least. i could care less what others play, just my own.

You almost got the main point

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sure there's a performance difference between crap gear and reasonable gear. There is far less performance difference between reasonable gear and the best gear. This applies to most sporting equipment. For example my $600 or so Sage fly rod is markedly better than a $50 Chinese bottom end job, but is probably not much better than a $200 rod or much worse than a $2000 rod.

If you're a Tiger woods then perhaps equipment that gives you an extra 1% edge is worth it, but most people would not tell the difference. The biggest success determining factors are ability and practice. Expensive kit does nothing unless you actually use it.

Marketers understand what drives buying for premium spending sports (golf, fly fishing,...). Most of the sportsmen don't have enough time to get out and practice sufficiently and feel a bit guilt about it. Being able to buy the toys helps alleviate that feeling of guilt rather than actually improving the game directly.