• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

National column for delaware paper

jtom2141

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
4
It's long but that's because space is tough to fill for a weekly student paper. Oddly a couple of decent names in sports writing have read this and didn't think it sucked. You might get a laugh or two. Feedback welcome (obviously).


A tradition unlike any other... and let's keep it that way

CBS is lucky I like golf so much.

It is lucky it is one of my favorite sports, it is lucky I am half-decent at it and it is lucky The Masters is one of my favorite weekends of the year. Because for all of the sappy, dramatic dweebery I have to put up with just to watch it, it probably should have lost a viewer by now.

From the floral names given to each of Augusta National's holes, to the broad, borderline-eerie smile from Jim Nantz in Butler Cabin at the Green Jacket Ceremony every year, The Masters has cemented itself as the most pretentious event in sports. The fact that I have to capitalize "Green," "Jacket," and "Ceremony," should be proof enough of that.

I understand The Masters is, according to CBS, a "tradition unlike any other," but every tradition is unlike any other, that's what makes it a tradition - it is different from everything else. The Super Bowl is a tradition unlike any other, so is the World Series. Maybe if there were another golf tournament at Augusta National with the best players in the world called "Screw You, This Is The Masters," I could see a reason for CBS pointing it out.

After more than 70 years of the tournament that America loves so much, it should be time for CBS to stop acting like The Masters is some ballet that viewers are privileged to watch. Sure, no matter how it cover the event, CBS is going to get the same ratings, but for us college students who will be watching this tournament for the next 40 years, it's time to tone it down.

I recently found an interview of Jim Nantz conducted before last year's Masters. Even off camera he oozes with sappy, dramatic language. During the interview, it quickly becomes evident there is a reason why Robert Frost did not become a golf announcer, and there is a reason Jim Nantz is not a published poet.

When asked what he first saw at this year's Masters, Nantz's words rivaled Shakespeare's… well, maybe dinner-theater Shakespeare.

"The first swing I saw was Ernie Els on the tee at the fourth hole. I was on my way to 15 and detoured over to see Ernie launch a two-iron that seemed to hang in the air for about 45 seconds. Draped against the sky, falling just beyond the flagstick. Effortless, like everything else he does."

This is not British Literature; in the words of Shooter McGavin, "This is golf!" If Nantz came out to a local municipal course in Newark, would he still be talking like this?

Charles "Chuckwagon" Bratkowksi steps onto the tee. His polyester polka-dot shorts are interacting beautifully with the brownish-yellow tee box. He's wearing his Sunday red shirt … actually I'm hearing from Lanny it's a spaghetti stain, what a fearless competitor. He addresses his glow-in-the-dark ball at the 98-yard par-3 eighth. He hits a high towering shot - like only Chuckwagon can - heading right for the flagstick … of the 13th hole. Effortless, just like everything else he does, including his job as mall security.

The bottom line is, coverage of The Masters, and golf in general, might be appealing to old farts, but it is alienating the future dads across America.

When the most popular golfer is a young, charismatic black man who appears in Nike commercials, has his own video game and is married to a supermodel, golf should not be restricted to middle-aged executives.

The inability to appeal to a younger audience starts with CBS's broadcast team. None of them are within a John Daly drive of 40 years old, and their inane, technical golf chatter is about as confusing as the IBM business consulting commercials aired during most tournaments. I'm not saying golf coverage should be turned into "Happy Gilmore," but dropping the cheesy puns ("Tiger roars again!") and the goofy jacket ceremonies (sorry, Jacket Ceremonies), would help keep the youth of today from changing the channel.

But possibly the most crucial step - a step that brings up a whole other set of issues in sports - is to add some diversity to golf. A 2003 study by the National Golf Foundation found that 15 percent of white adults were golfers. The NGF also reported that 97 percent of the golf courses that closed last year were public, the only tracks us college kids can afford to play.

These statistics prove the whole focus of golf is based around old, rich, white men. Augusta National's history of not allowing women or African-Americans into its club screams "old rich white men" like the Republican National Convention. The way CBS covers the Masters and the way the PGA and its players market themselves to big name corporations does nothing to alleviate that bias either.

Once golf can get past these cultural boundaries, it can begin to expand its audience to a younger base. I'm a rare, 22-year-old golf fan. I estimate Tiger Woods has about 12 years left of competitive golf. The clock is ticking.
 
Jtom, thanks for posting. It's not a bad effort. It could definitely use some tightening, and I'm not sure if your overall premise -- golf is pompous and appeals to old people? -- is a particularly strong, or compelling argument, but maybe I can show you how you could tighten it a bit.

jtom2141 said:
A tradition unlike any other... and let's keep it that way[I ashume this is the headline or subhead. Otherwise, it's a strange transition to the second sentence.]

CBS is lucky I like golf so much.

It is lucky it is one of my favorite sports, it is lucky I am half-decent at it and it is lucky The Masters is one of my favorite weekends of the year. Because for all of the sappy, dramatic dweebery I have to put up with just to watch it, it probably should have lost a viewer by now. [In two sentences, you used the word "it" six times. What if your second sentence said, "Lucky it's one of my favorite sports, lucky I'm a halfway decent player, and lucky The Masters remains one of my favorite weekends of the year." Also, dweebery? I know it's a college paper and you're going for alliteration, but you can do better that using a word that does not exist.]

From the floral names given to each of Augusta National's holes, to the broad, borderline-eerie smile [Why borderline eerie? Is it eerie or isn't it? Also, should it be "the smile from Jim Nantz in Butler Cabin," or smile on Jim Nantz's face?] from Jim Nantz in Butler Cabin at the Green Jacket Ceremony every year, The Masters has cemented itself [Kind of awkward, kind of a cliche.] as the most pretentious event in sports. The fact that I have to capitalize "Green," "Jacket," and "Ceremony," should be proof enough of that.

I understand The Masters is, according to CBS, a "tradition unlike any other," but every tradition is unlike any other, that's what makes it a tradition - it is different from everything else [Well, not really. It's tradition for my wife's family to open presents on Christmas Eve. It's tradition for my family to do it Christmas morning. Millions and millions of people do both. Calling something a tradition doesn't make it unique]. The Super Bowl is a tradition unlike any other, so is the World Series. Maybe if there were another golf tournament at Augusta National with the best players in the world called "Screw You, This Is The Masters," I could see a reason for CBS pointing it out.

After more than 70 years of the tournament that America loves so much, it should be time for CBS to stop acting like The Masters is some[unnecessary word] a ballet that viewers are privileged to watch. Sure, No matter how it covers the event, CBS is going to get the same ratings [Do you really believe this is true?], but for us college students who will be watching this tournament for the next 40 years, it's time to tone it down. [Tone it down? How about, "It's time to do away with the stuffy shirts and blue-blooded snobbery?" Or something like that?]

I recently found Inan interview of JimNantz [You mentioned Nantz above. Last names only on second reference.] conducted before last year's Masters, he still oozes with sappy, dramatic language, even off camera. [I rearranged the order of this a bit.] During the interview, It quickly becomes evident there is a reason why Robert Frost did not become a golf announcer, and there is a reason Jim Nantz is not a published poet. [I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I'm not sure it quite works. There are a lot of reasons why Frost didn't become a golf announcer. Or a barber. Or a lion tamer. Or an astronaut. (Though I guess all would have been the road less traveled by.) It might be better to simply say, "It quickly becomes evident that Jim Nantz is no Robert Frost, except, perhaps, in his own mind.]

When asked what he first saw at this year's Masters, Nantz's words rivaled Shakespeare's… well, maybe dinner-theater Shakespeare. [Again, I'm not sure this sentence quite works. Dinner theatre may be less formal that traditional theatre, but Shakespeare is still Shakespeare, is it not?]

"The first swing I saw was Ernie Els on the tee at the fourth hole. I was on my way to 15 and detoured over to see Ernie launch a two-iron that seemed to hang in the air for about 45 seconds. Draped against the sky, falling just beyond the flagstick. Effortless, like everything else he does."
 
This is not British Literature; in the words of Shooter McGavin, "This is golf!" [Of all the Shooter McGavin quotes I can think of, I'm not sure this one stands out enough or conveys what you're trying to say. I think the reference is fine for a college paper (I know he's the villain in Happy Gilmore) but in a professional paper, I'd probably at least want to to ID what movie he's from, if you really wanted to keep it.] If Nantz came out to a local municipal course in Newark, would he still be talking like this?

Charles "Chuckwagon" Bratkowksi steps onto the tee. His polyester polka-dot shorts are interacting beautifully with the brownish-yellow tee box. He's wearing his Sunday red shirt … actually I'm hearing from Lanny it's a spaghetti stain, what a fearless competitor. He addresses his glow-in-the-dark ball at the 98-yard par-3 eighth. He hits a high towering shot - like only Chuckwagon can - heading right for the flagstick … of the 13th hole. Effortless, just like everything else he does, including his job as mall security. [I thought this was funny. I could imagine Nantz saying this.]

The bottom line is, coverage of The Masters, and golf in general, might be appealing to old farts[eh...], but it is alienating the future dads across America. [Is it? I'm not sure saying it makes it so.]

When the most popular golfer is a young, charismatic black man who appears in Nike commercials, has his own video game and is married to a supermodel [Elin is a babe, but I think model is probably more accurate. Supermodels don't have to seek work as Jesper Parnavick's nanny.], golf should not be restricted to middle-aged executives.

The inability to appeal to a younger audience starts with CBS's broadcast team. None of them are within a John Daly drive of 40 years old, and their inane, technical golf chatter is about as confusing as the IBM business consulting commercials aired during most tournaments. I'm not saying golf coverage should be turned into "Happy Gilmore," but dropping the cheesy puns ("Tiger roars again!") and the goofy jacket ceremonies (sorry, Jacket Ceremonies)[Nice.], would help keep the youth of today from changing the channel. [I think this is sort of a flimsy conclusion. Golf coverage is pompous, golf coverage is cheesy, golf traditions are haughty, but if it did away with that, the youth of today would be more interested?]

But possibly the most crucial step - a step that brings up a whole other set of issues in sports - is to add some diversity to golf. A 2003 study by the National Golf Foundation found that 15 percent of white adults were golfers. [Ok, but what does this statistic mean? What percent of African American or Asians adults are golfers? I have nothing to compare this too. It would be more telling if that statistics said, "Only 1 percent of golfers are minorities." But 15 percent of white guys are golfers? Is that a lot? A little? Is it the most popular sport for white guys? We don't know.] The NGF also reported that 97 percent of the golf courses that closed last year were public, the only tracks us college kids can afford to play. [What's the ashumption here, though? That courses are closing because fewer people are playing? That there are too many courses and not enough interest? Standing alone, I'm not sure this statistic says much. I think you can make a better point about economics. Golf is expensive, and it's missing, or has completely missed, an opportunity with Woods in his prime to attract more people from diverse economic backgrounds.]
 
These statistics prove the whole focus of golf is based around old, rich, white men. [This may be true, but I don't think these statistics prove that.] Augusta National's history of not allowing women or African-Americans into its club [It's true that they don't have any female members, but they did invite, I think, two African-Americans to join as members in the mid-90s.] screams "old rich white men" like the Republican National Convention. The way CBS covers the Masters and the way the PGA and its players market themselves to big name corporations does nothing to alleviate that bias either.[Do players market themselves to corporations, or do corporations use players to market products to the public?]

Once golf can get past these cultural boundaries, it can begin to expand its audience to a younger base. [I think it would be appropriate to talk about the Tiger Woods Foundation here. It does a lot to attract younger kids to golf. And Woods is now the CEO. Is it doing enough? Is he doing enough? At some point in Tiger's career, I think around 2000, more people were playing golf than ever before. I think that's dropped off some. Did golf miss its opportunity? Also, who should be doing more? The PGA of America? The USGA? CBS? The Masters is a private tournament. It likes its traditions, and doesn't care if younger generations think the Green Jacket Ceremony is pompous. It would continue to hold the tournament even if CBS said it would no longer cover the event. So I'm not sure the onus is on The Masters.] I'm a rare, 22-year-old golf fan. I estimate Tiger Woods has about 12 years left of competitive golf. The clock is ticking. [This last line is a big-time cliche.]

I don't want that to come off as too harsh, Jtom, because I think you're on the right track. I wrote a lot of columns like this in college that didn't quite come together. I'm painfully recalling a fake match between David Duval and God (with Jim Nantz and Ken Venturi calling the action) that I once penned. I think this column needs more focus, and needs better evidence to support your premise, but I think it contained some nice writing.

Along the same subject lines, I'd encourage you to pick up a copy of Rick Reilly's novel "Missing Links" which tackles golf's tug-of-war between the haves and have nots, with Reilly firmly on the side of the have nots. It's a funny ode to those who love the game for the camaraderie more than they do the stuffy business deals negotiated on the 12th tee. It's worth your time.

Keep writing columns, as well as other kinds of writing. And again, thanks for posting.
 
Wow. Thanks a lot for the revisions. I agree with almost all of what you wrote and a few of the grammatical errors got picked up by either myself or copy editors (this wasn't the final draft). The only thing I disagreed with was the part where I list the statistics. It was very hard to find relevant info without paying for it and while I agree I should've elaborated more, space did not permit it. I wanted some semblance of data to back up my argument and while it wasn't perfect, I thought it was somewhat telling.

This was actually the first column I ever wrote. I wrote it for a clash a year ago, my teacher liked it so I spruced it up this year and published it (not sure how ethical that is, but I don't think it detracted from the end product).

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback and I'll be sure to post more in the future, knowing how helpful this forum can be.
 
jtom (and keep in mind this is not just directed at you but also intended for the benefit of our whole workshop),

Here is one thing that it took me a long time to understand about column writing: Even though it's your opinion, it doesn't mean it doesn't need extensive research and interviews to back up your argument. Now, I know you probably weren't thinking about that when you wrote this for a clash, especially since this is your first column ever, but you'll write columns in the future, and the next time you tackle a subject, keep some of this in mind.

The internet is an incredible research tool. It's also much easier to use than it was even 10 years ago when I was in college. Just now, I googled "golf" and "minorities" and found a bunch of articles with statistics that could have been relavent for your argument.

http://www.golfdom.com/golfdom/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=325423

According to a 2003 survey conducted by the National Golf Foundation (NGF), there are as many as 14 million minorities who are "at least a little interested" in playing golf. However, only 5.5 million minorities actually played at least a round of golf or visited a golf practice facility in the previous year. If the industry is to once again thrive, it will need to attract some of those 8.5 million minorities who are finding some reason to stay away from the golf course.

Not surprisingly, 70.8 percent of the core golfers in the United States — those who play at least eight times a year — boast an annual household income of more than $50,000, including 32.1 percent who earn more than $100,000, according to a 2005 study by the NGF. While golf may be shedding its "white man's" tag, disposing of its "rich man's" label might be another story.

Nonetheless, a rich African-American is just as likely as a rich Caucasian to splurge on golf, according to the 2003 NGF survey. Participation rates among incomes more than $100,000 are between 20 percent and 30 percent for both whites and minorities.

Nonetheless, the NGF stresses that the golf industry should focus on attracting more blue-collar minorities. Unfortunately, a less-wealthy Hispanic golfer is not as likely as a less-wealthy white golfer to play the game. The participation rates for those who earn between $50,000 and $75,000 are between 19 percent and 24 percent for Caucasians and 8 percent and 18 percent for minorities.

Here is another article about the Tiger Woods impact after he won The Masters in 1997. Golf got a big bump in minority and youth participation. Did it miss an opportunity to do more?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/06/17/MN6574.DTL&type=special

-- The number of African Americans who played golf at least once climbed from 431,000 in 1991 to 800,000 last year, according to the National Golf Foundation. That's an 86 percent increase over six years.

This accounted for a significant portion of the game's overall growth, from 24 million golfers in 1991 to 26.5 million last year -- a 10 percent rise.

-- The number of juniors, ages 12 to 17, playing golf at least once soared from 1.8 million in 1996 to 2.4 million in 1997 -- a 33 percent increase in only one year.


All that was free, and fairly easy to find. I found it in 10 minutes. Also, a foundation like NGF really wants to get its information out there, so there is a good chance they will call you back, even if you only work for a college paper. Now I know you said you didn't have the space, but I think you could pick one of those paragraphs I pulled out, and use it to make your point better. Saying that 15 percent of white people play golf doesn't tell me anything other than 15 percent of white people play golf. I have nothing to compare it to.

Don't let any of this discourage you, because this is just your first column. And it wasn't bad. Just make certain you don't settle for the first statistic you find.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top