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

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.