Is Golf Digest Moving in on My Turf? I hope so!

Interesting article from Golf Digest.  Check this out:

It is a mistake to use television ratings as the sole arbiter in evaluating the strength of the game. Tiger Woods still piques the interest of Nielsen families. So do the Kardashians. So what?

A quick search of my website found nineteen references to “Kardashian” and ten more to “Golfdashian.”  And I’ve long been asking why I should care about television ratings.  For the health of golf, there are far more important metrics; one of the most important, participation, declined during the Woods Era.

This comment made me laugh:

Eras aren’t defined by one player, even Woods, who had his foils.

What the hell?  Who is this guy trying to kid?  Not only was the era defined by Woods, Woods was the only word in the entire golf media dictionary.  For the media to suddenly try to distance themselves from their 18-year Only Tiger Matters campaign is a bit ridiculous.

Still, it’s cute to see Golf Digest attach the training wheels and try to write a real golf article.  I applaud them.  Reality in mainstream golf reporting?  I could get used to it!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Is Golf Digest Moving in on My Turf? I hope so!

  1. Kris says:

    Dear sweet Jesus. That picture makes me wish you deleted comments. I’m going to have nightmares for weeks.

    Kyle Porter is writing real articles lately. He wrote one about Rory being undervalued that I think you’d like.

    • lannyh says:

      I didn’t realize there was a graphic there. I will delete it.

    • lannyh says:

      Yes, Kyle did a great job with that piece. It’s real journalism. I left a comment there whining about his overuse (in my view) of Steph Curry. Seriously, I only know who that is because Kyle references him so often. I get why he does it, though. This is the NBA playoffs and people do a lot of google (and yahoo and bing) news searches on “Steph Curry” so they’ll stumble upon Kyle’s pieces, and perhaps click on it.

      I probably should have made my point elsewhere because that’s an excellent piece. Good points, good structure, good sentences. In my defense, I was very complimentary other than whining about Curry. My beef was that I skipped it two or three times because of Curry’s name. Every day we were getting “Step Curry played golf after game” and similar. So I was conditioned to see “Curry” and keep scanning for something worth reading.

      But, yes, it’s a great piece. I’ve always said people rip on Porter mainly for things he more or less is forced to write. The Tiger crap brings in commenter foodfights (though nowhere near what they once did), so Kyle writes trolling articles about Woods. People might leave a “zinger” troll comment of their own, then check back over and over to exchange insults with someone else. That ups the view count a lot. If Kyle caters to that impulse people have, it makes his numbers look better. It would not surprise me if this great column he wrote gets fewer comments and views than throwaway articles of the type, “Did Tiger cheat or is it just the haters out to get him?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s