Grayson Murray Might Be On To Something....

[lowheel]

I've come to the conclusion that participating in and following "social media" will make you stupid.

 

One wonders what you think this joint is?

 

A golf forum :tongue:

[lowheel]

Social media will do nothing for the game. But i do think all the cookie cutter pros with no personality who give answers to questions that you can predict doesn't help. Truth is I dont see how any pro or pros can do much to stop this ship from sinking. The new commish better start brainstorming

 

I agree with you but can you blame them? Rory shows a hint of personality and they crap all over him. He got death threats for golfing with Trump. the commish needs to focus on the golf and community outreach. Partner up with all the governing bodies and give out free green fees , free lessons, clinics heck even equipment from donations The first tee is great but isnt enough. higher participation equals more golfers, more golfers equal better ratings. No more of this all eggs in one tiger basket strategy. Theres no overnight strategy/fix. it could take 6-10 years but at least it will be organic growth

[ctmason_98]

I think he's on to something. Social media is a powerful tool, that if used effectively, can give people a more personal connection to the players/game.

 

That's fine but the problem is that's where it ends. Doesn't go beyond just following the people on social media.

[lowheel]

I think he's on to something. Social media is a powerful tool, that if used effectively, can give people a more personal connection to the players/game.

 

That's fine but the problem is that's where it ends. Doesn't go beyond just following the people on social media.

 

yup exactly. Its actually lazy self promoting that does nothing for the game

[whr]

I think he's on to something. Social media is a powerful tool, that if used effectively, can give people a more personal connection to the players/game.

 

That's fine but the problem is that's where it ends. Doesn't go beyond just following the people on social media.

 

yup exactly. Its actually lazy self promoting that does nothing for the game

 

Blanket statement.

 

Does it have good and bad traits, sure. But when used correctly, social media gets people talking, creates buzz, can spread info like wild fire, helps people discover new things (i.e. golf), and keeps things relevant.

[lowheel]

I think he's on to something. Social media is a powerful tool, that if used effectively, can give people a more personal connection to the players/game.

 

That's fine but the problem is that's where it ends. Doesn't go beyond just following the people on social media.

 

yup exactly. Its actually lazy self promoting that does nothing for the game

 

Blanket statement.

 

Does it have good and bad traits, sure. But when used correctly, social media gets people talking, creates buzz, can spread info like wild fire, helps people discover new things (i.e. golf), and keeps things relevant.

 

Even marketing companies have debunked this theory. How does it help grow the game if Jordan Spieth tweets something off the wall? Whos going to pick up the game because of a tweet? or liking a facebook post? serious question

[whr]

I think he's on to something. Social media is a powerful tool, that if used effectively, can give people a more personal connection to the players/game.

 

That's fine but the problem is that's where it ends. Doesn't go beyond just following the people on social media.

 

yup exactly. Its actually lazy self promoting that does nothing for the game

 

Blanket statement.

 

Does it have good and bad traits, sure. But when used correctly, social media gets people talking, creates buzz, can spread info like wild fire, helps people discover new things (i.e. golf), and keeps things relevant.

 

Even marketing companies have debunked this theory. How does it help grow the game if Jordan Spieth tweets something off the wall? Whos going to pick up the game because of a tweet? or liking a facebook post? serious question

 

Well, a lady pal of mine, who doesn't play golf, found out about Ricky Fowler two weeks ago after seeing a photo of him hanging out with some celebrity they were following on social media. Her reaction went something like this: "Who's this decent looking guy hanging out with someone I know?.......Let me look them up......Huh, he’s a professional golfer?…seems interesting, based on his social media accounts, therefore I'm interested and now I'm going to follow him on social media." Guess who wants to go to the driving range for the first time ever this weekend? All thanks to a picture on social media.

[Terry Gold]

If I was Grayson, I'd worry about winning before what the purse might be.

 

But, to be fair, I forwarded this thread and his tweet to educators throughout the schools of Haiti and they all want him to know that their prayers are with him.

[Muirfield Willie]

I wonder if he caught a punch from a real life cowboy who called him out on being a keyboard cowboy. Missing tooth makes him look like a real badass lmao.

[knock it close]

Screw it I like Grayson I'm all in on him

[Terry Gold]

So many amateur golf enthusiasts work backwards from the assumption that somehow the size of purses the pros play for should somehow be a matter of great concern to them, the viewers/fans, along with the idea that tournament attendance and TV ratings need to continue to grow, and that it's essential to develop and support new strategies that work towards keeping 'golf' on the radar of joe q. sportsfan, so that he/she might attend a local event, tune in to CBS on Saturday even though Tiger isn't there, and/or maybe even go out and hack it up on Sunday with a newly purchased M1.

 

Why?

 

Golf, the game, was just fine long before this paradigm of corporate hegemony somehow convinced the golfing public at large that they need be concerned with the economic well-being of the sport, and consider allowing for/supporting changes in how the game is structured, sold, perhaps eventually to the point of bastardizing the game, all for the sake of the corporate interests built around it.

 

We must always allow room for improvement and change and an open dialogue about such things, but In actuality I believe the notion that golf, the game, is in danger of going the way of the dinosaurs exists primarily, virtually exclusively, for the sole purpose to continue lining the pockets of a very few. It's important to make that vital distinction between the game of golf and the business interests of the tour and OEMs. The problem is that they are all too often unquestionably conflated.

 

I understand there are livelihoods of instructors, groundskeepers, club-fitters, etc at play when participation shrinks, and I don't take that lightly. But can anyone ever recall after hearing someone utters the 'grow the game' mantra it being followed up with a single reason/justification why it is such a matter of grave importance? What does that mean, to 'grow the game' and why is it something the amateur golfer need be so concerned with? Give me reasons, and there are some, at least tangentially related (open, well maintained courses, equipment choices, etc.) and I"m happy to listen, but the ubiquitous parroting of what is essentially a vague marketing catchphrase employed by the sponsor CEO of the week and network lackeys, by guys like us on here who play for love, not money, I believe should be considered first as corporate dogma before accepted as righteous creed.

[ctmason_98]

 

Golf, the game, was just fine long before this paradigm of corporate hegemony somehow convinced the golfing public at large that they need be concerned with the economic well-being of the sport, and consider allowing for/supporting changes in how the game is structured, sold, perhaps eventually to the point of bastardizing the game, all for the sake of the corporate interests built around it.

 

Do you honestly think that the game of golf in the United States, built entirely to be exclusive, was at some point NOT aligned with corporate interests? There was simply no such time.

 

But you're right. Nobody has to care about the health of the sport. Most people don't.

 

So you demand a reason why. There is no good reason other than people wanting others to enjoy the game.

 

If you don't care about less people playing, an increasingly aging population of golfers and less golf courses to play then you don't care. Thanks for being honest.

[ChronicSlicer]

If you want to grow the game in terms of getting more kids involved, lower the cost of a round, cost of clubs,balls,shoes etc..Let`s face it, it`s not cheap to golf. YES, i know a thrift store set of clubs would be a great starter set. Most of you that have kids know they want what the pro`s play, they wanna wear what the pro`s wear, gotta have that 35 dollar flat brim orange Puma hat. You get the picture.

 

As for adults, yeah maybe these guys seem boring,but they have standards they have to follow. Could you seriously imagine if Spieth and the boy`s were caught pounding booze and getting lap dances in strip club? (Bye bye UnderArmour, hello K-Mart) In my opinion that`s ok, that`s being who you are,being an adult letting off some steam. But in "the gentlemen`s game" that would be a sin beyond sin.

 

Being in the spotlight has constraints for sure, sponsors would bail on them, PGA would freak out, people would be saying "You`re supposed to be a role model for the kids.."

[mjen43]

So many amateur golf enthusiasts work backwards from the assumption that somehow the size of purses the pros play for should somehow be a matter of great concern to them, the viewers/fans, along with the idea that tournament attendance and TV ratings need to continue to grow, and that it's essential to develop and support new strategies that work towards keeping 'golf' on the radar of joe q. sportsfan, so that he/she might attend a local event, tune in to CBS on Saturday even though Tiger isn't there, and/or maybe even go out and hack it up on Sunday with a newly purchased M1.

 

Why?

 

Golf, the game, was just fine long before this paradigm of corporate hegemony somehow convinced the golfing public at large that they need be concerned with the economic well-being of the sport, and consider allowing for/supporting changes in how the game is structured, sold, perhaps eventually to the point of bastardizing the game, all for the sake of the corporate interests built around it.

 

We must always allow room for improvement and change and an open dialogue about such things, but In actuality I believe the notion that golf, the game, is in danger of going the way of the dinosaurs exists primarily, virtually exclusively, for the sole purpose to continue lining the pockets of a very few. It's important to make that vital distinction between the game of golf and the business interests of the tour and OEMs. The problem is that they are all too often unquestionably conflated.

 

I understand there are livelihoods of instructors, groundskeepers, club-fitters, etc at play when participation shrinks, and I don't take that lightly. But can anyone ever recall after hearing someone utters the 'grow the game' mantra it being followed up with a single reason/justification why it is such a matter of grave importance? What does that mean, to 'grow the game' and why is it something the amateur golfer need be so concerned with? Give me reasons, and there are some, at least tangentially related (open, well maintained courses, equipment choices, etc.) and I"m happy to listen, but the ubiquitous parroting of what is essentially a vague marketing catchphrase employed by the sponsor CEO of the week and network lackeys, by guys like us on here who play for love, not money, I believe should be considered first as corporate dogma before accepted as righteous creed.

 

Perfect post. Around me there's virtually no available space for something the size of a golf course to be built, so all growing the game will do is clog up courses and slow down rounds even more than they are.

[Terry Gold]

Golf, the game, was just fine long before this paradigm of corporate hegemony somehow convinced the golfing public at large that they need be concerned with the economic well-being of the sport, and consider allowing for/supporting changes in how the game is structured, sold, perhaps eventually to the point of bastardizing the game, all for the sake of the corporate interests built around it.

 

Do you honestly think that the game of golf in the United States, built entirely to be exclusive, was at some point NOT aligned with corporate interests? There was simply no such time.

 

But you're right. Nobody has to care about the health of the sport. Most people don't.

 

So you demand a reason why. There is no good reason other than people wanting others to enjoy the game.

 

If you don't care about less people playing, an increasingly aging population of golfers and less golf courses to play then you don't care. Thanks for being honest.

 

Again, you are conflating the financial interests that drive professional golf with the the game itself.

 

And even if, as you claim, it's fact that golf has always been inexorably linked to corporate interests and defined itself through exclusivity, it doesn't change the fact that over the past 20 years there was a period of unprecedented, exponential commercial growth in the industry, manifested across professional (big purses) and public arenas (more players and courses), which ultimately led to an (over) expansion, a bubblle, if you will. And bubbles always pop, which is precisely the reason spectators are being given the hard sell every time they tune in.

 

I never implied that I prefer exclusivity over participation, but in 1987, were there not enough courses to cater to demand? But there certainly became an over abundance soon thereafter, which brings us to this current period we are in, a 'correction'. There's no need to hit the panic button, as if golf is some resource that will dry up and disappear, which is why I resent feeling like anytime I turn on the Golf Channel they are doing their level best to work in any opportunity to promote and sell the viewer. It's transparent and base. This trend towards depicting and covering golf more as a commodity than a competition is a drag.

[MidwestGolfBum]

I think he's on to something. Social media is a powerful tool, that if used effectively, can give people a more personal connection to the players/game.

;

 

While I agree that social media can give you that connection, you would have to be a fan of that person or have at least enough interest to seek that person out on the chosen form of social media. While there may be some things that have greater appeal, at some point I don't need to know more about how some golfer spends their time as it's not going to be relatable for many given the income disparity unless I was, again, already interested in the message that they had.

 

For some examples I can tell you that on Facebook I see golf related posts from my buddies who play and follow golf and if I post about golf, unless it's some kind of picture that has a broader appeal, there is little to no interaction outside of that same group of friends. Sure, this has changed with "pages" where I am able to follow given people/things but that goes back to being people who already sought out that person or thing. This is the same for Twitter and Instagram, but I can choose to see more golf related posts by following the people and things that interest me.

 

While it may not be a bad thing when used well, social media isn't going to be what keeps the current and upcoming players in the spotlight with the huge purses as they are used to now unless we can get another Tigeresque figure that can be the face of the game to the everyday person who would generally not have interest in the game. Even then, I know a ton of people who love(d) to watch Tiger but haven't played golf a single time in their life, which doesn't grow the game at the am levels, but does accomplish keeping the TV/$$$ where they are now.

 

My 4.5 cents worth and you didn't want any of it.

[lowheel]

I think he's on to something. Social media is a powerful tool, that if used effectively, can give people a more personal connection to the players/game.

;

 

While I agree that social media can give you that connection, you would have to be a fan of that person or have at least enough interest to seek that person out on the chosen form of social media. While there may be some things that have greater appeal, at some point I don't need to know more about how some golfer spends their time as it's not going to be relatable for many given the income disparity unless I was, again, already interested in the message that they had.

 

For some examples I can tell you that on Facebook I see golf related posts from my buddies who play and follow golf and if I post about golf, unless it's some kind of picture that has a broader appeal, there is little to no interaction outside of that same group of friends. Sure, this has changed with "pages" where I am able to follow given people/things but that goes back to being people who already sought out that person or thing. This is the same for Twitter and Instagram, but I can choose to see more golf related posts by following the people and things that interest me.

 

While it may not be a bad thing when used well, social media isn't going to be what keeps the current and upcoming players in the spotlight with the huge purses as they are used to now unless we can get another Tigeresque figure that can be the face of the game to the everyday person who would generally not have interest in the game. Even then, I know a ton of people who love(d) to watch Tiger but haven't played golf a single time in their life, which doesn't grow the game at the am levels, but does accomplish keeping the TV/$$$ where they are now.

 

My 4.5 cents worth and you didn't want any of it.

 

Very well said. I dont care about tour purses either just participation. older players are not being replaced by younger players at a scary rate. Its such a beautiful game and escape that i wish more people had access to it.

[ctmason_98]

Golf, the game, was just fine long before this paradigm of corporate hegemony somehow convinced the golfing public at large that they need be concerned with the economic well-being of the sport, and consider allowing for/supporting changes in how the game is structured, sold, perhaps eventually to the point of bastardizing the game, all for the sake of the corporate interests built around it.

 

Do you honestly think that the game of golf in the United States, built entirely to be exclusive, was at some point NOT aligned with corporate interests? There was simply no such time.

 

But you're right. Nobody has to care about the health of the sport. Most people don't.

 

So you demand a reason why. There is no good reason other than people wanting others to enjoy the game.

 

If you don't care about less people playing, an increasingly aging population of golfers and less golf courses to play then you don't care. Thanks for being honest.

 

I never implied that I prefer exclusivity over participation, but in 1987, were there not enough courses to cater to demand? But there certainly became an over abundance soon thereafter, which brings us to this current period we are in, a 'correction'. There's no need to hit the panic button, as if golf is some resource that will dry up and disappear, which is why I resent feeling like anytime I turn on the Golf Channel they are doing their level best to work in any opportunity to promote and sell the viewer. It's transparent and base. This trend towards depicting and covering golf more as a commodity than a competition is a drag.

 

Okay, I understand and agree that it is a period of correction. One hopes more people are playing the game than are dying. That's where my interests pretty much stop. Depending on what you're reading you could say it's either fine or it's not.

 

If you feel people are in panic mode, okay. You must admit that those with a financial interest in the game panicking is reasonable behavior to expect.

 

Depicting golf as a commodity than a competition? What the heck does that even mean? When has a sport on tv ever been depicted as anything but a commodity?

[handukyun]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/grill-room/lindsey-pelas-be-murrays-masters-par-3-caddie-if-he-makes-it

 

Thank you Murray.

[donX]

http://www.golfchann...-if-he-makes-it

 

Thank you Murray.

Yeah right so guys play well and winning don't grow the game, but guy who plays badly and need to be motivated by Playboy model to go to the Masters will?

[bscinstnct]

Twitter doesnt inspire. It merely enables distribution of content. The content is either inspiring or a mere distraction and people move on

 

Inspiration growns the game.

 

Inspiration.

 

 

[bladehunter]

I wish Twitter would die in a fire.

 

 

Lol. Here here ! Ive got a match !

[bladehunter]

Yea. I can see Phil and bones gathered around a cell phone sending out tweets at lunch. Lol. To me I prefer the player who doesn't indulge in the social media nonsense.

Plenty of high ranking people have been ruined because they had access to Twitter. I suspect that's all we would see. More drama. Not interested.

[lowheel]

Twitter doesnt inspire. It merely enables distribution of content. The content is either inspiring or a mere distraction and people move on

 

Inspiration growns the game.

 

Inspiration.

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Dude you really need a new video to post. Beating 2 career win Chris Dimarco in extra holes after folding on the 71st and 72nd holes isnt exactly Tigers best moment.

[eagle1997]

http://www.golfchann...-if-he-makes-it

 

Thank you Murray.

Yeah right so guys play well and winning don't grow the game, but guy who plays badly and need to be motivated by Playboy model to go to the Masters will?

 

You really did buy it for the articles, didn't you?

 

Good for you Jack!

[lowheel]

Yea. I can see Phil and bones gathered around a cell phone sending out tweets at lunch. Lol. To me I prefer the player who doesn't indulge in the social media nonsense.

Plenty of high ranking people have been ruined because they had access to Twitter. I suspect that's all we would see. More drama. Not interested.

 

Look at the LPGA. The lower their ranking the more they tweet. Then they wonder why Asian golfers are dominating, theyre too busy practicing and winning not picking the best selfie of them "in the gym".

[sphna12d]

The men in the green coats would never allow this to happen.

[HoffTTM]

The men in the green coats would never allow this to happen.

 

One would certainly hope so

[eagle1997]

The men in the green coats would never allow this to happen.

 

One would certainly hope so

 

Let me get this straight.

 

You wouldn't want The Men in Green to allow Grayson Murray to choose his own caddie for the par 3 tourney?

 

Because that caddie is a beautiful woman?

 

 

I don't understand this, at all.

[blaird]

The men in the green coats would never allow this to happen.

 

One would certainly hope so

 

Let me get this straight.

 

You wouldn't want The Men in Green to allow Grayson Murray to choose his own caddie for the par 3 tourney?

 

Because that caddie is a beautiful woman?

 

 

I don't understand this, at all.

 

Because none of the knockout wives/gfs have caddied for their significant other??