I have different feelings here. I play both sports and i disagree about tennis being more difficult than golf, phisically yes it is but mentally it is a different story. And also it is not true that you only play golf when you can´t run after a tennis ball and it is not a matter of being a real man or not. The real thing is about popularity for both sports, imo golf is more popular in higher socials levels but no for the common man or woman, it is a matter of prestige like the original article sentences: More prestige=More TV exposure (most of the CEO and enterprise leaders play golf not tennis)=More money or quicker investment return in publicity and advertisments. So it is a question of money for the enterprises and people making decisions on TV rather than being really more popular (i don´t think so).
This might help explain golf's popularity to tennis fans
- Thread starter Kevin Patrick
- Start date
Craig Sheppard
Hall of Fame
Oscar said:
You were going okay up until here... I don't care how you slice it, be it recreational participants, industry size, prize money, endorsements, etc--golf is far, far ahead of tennis. There's no masquerade being put on by the TV networks here... golf flat out kills tennis in popularity.
alienhamster
Hall of Fame
You know Craig, I agree with you here. But the thing I still find weird is that tennis does benefit from the "hotness" factor of its athletes moreso than golf (as far as I can tell). Many girls and guys I know who don't watch tennis say Roddick is hot (and Agassi used to get this, too). And Sharapova, Hantuchova (before she became skeletal), and other women also get the extra publicity for their physical beauty. Hotness seems to do wonders for reality TV ratings, so I really wonder why there's not a bigger pay-off for tennis, too.Craig Sheppard said:
It infuriates me. I have friends who still perceive tennis as an inferior/leisurely/less than manly sport and then I took one of them to the US Open and practically the first thing he saw was Andrew Murray puking his guts out in the fifth set right in front of us. Talk about shock and awe! He was laughing and was speechless.
After watching Agassi/Blake and Agassi/Federer, he totally changed his tune and now has great respect for the supreme athleticism and mental toughness it takes. He never thought that by age 30 most pros are past their best tennis. And it only took him 30 years to realize it.
Now he's anxious to play tennis with me. He's not bad, totally competitive and wants to get better so he can beat me. It'll never happen. I've created a monster.
After watching Agassi/Blake and Agassi/Federer, he totally changed his tune and now has great respect for the supreme athleticism and mental toughness it takes. He never thought that by age 30 most pros are past their best tennis. And it only took him 30 years to realize it.
Now he's anxious to play tennis with me. He's not bad, totally competitive and wants to get better so he can beat me. It'll never happen. I've created a monster.
Craig Sheppard
Hall of Fame
alienhamster said:
True about the hotness. But that cuts both ways. People know of the players because they're "hot", but then if they only see them as "hot", they don't really see them as real athletes. I still think tennis is considered a flashy, more style-than-substance type of sport by the general public. No other sport do people worry about clothes and shoes and matching bags and so on as tennis. Of course it's country-club background gave it this stigma. Sure basketball's got shoes and it's own style, but it isn't perceived as a "soft" sport (probably because of its street roots--the style, not the game. Old fuddie duddies came up w/ the game)
In golf there are a spattering of style gurus like Tiger, Jesper Parnevik, Charles Howell III, the late Payne Stewart, and a few LPGA ladies. Besides this handful, people aren't really paying attention to their looks though... even though these guys are way more "soft" than tennis players, somehow that gets overlooked and tennis players are still low on the totem pole.
Again and again and again. Slate gets minus points because tennis had a great showcase at the open. And the spin is STILL "oh, woe is tennis."
Popularity is not participation. Baseball was once America's game. Did all those watching play? No. Football is currently America's game - who plays? Nobody. NASCAR? How many racers do you know?
The constant droning about specific details about golf or tennis is completely off the mark. It's got nothing to do with that.
Sport is really nothing more than storytelling. Make the audience part of the story and scientific studies have shown that those watching are just as involved and just as amped as those competing (In other words "I'm from da Bronx! WHOOOOO Yankees!") - that's how you get people in.
Tennis doesn't have convenient pre-set geographical loyalties. So it has to rely on cultural buzz and player charisma. Golf doesn't either, but it's got demographics going for it (at least for the moment - it won't be nearly as popular once the boomers die off).
In fact, let the boys club have their good walk spoiled and their tailgates and all that other garbage. If being a "major" sport means constant badgering about erectile disfunction or how I'm going to invest my money during the commercial breaks - I'd much rather hang out with the kid's mojo, thanks.
Last time I checked, I didn't want to grow up to be some suburbanite middle manager with problems gettin' it up - and hey look at that I still don't. Thank goodness tennis isn't golf, I say.
Popularity is not participation. Baseball was once America's game. Did all those watching play? No. Football is currently America's game - who plays? Nobody. NASCAR? How many racers do you know?
The constant droning about specific details about golf or tennis is completely off the mark. It's got nothing to do with that.
Sport is really nothing more than storytelling. Make the audience part of the story and scientific studies have shown that those watching are just as involved and just as amped as those competing (In other words "I'm from da Bronx! WHOOOOO Yankees!") - that's how you get people in.
Tennis doesn't have convenient pre-set geographical loyalties. So it has to rely on cultural buzz and player charisma. Golf doesn't either, but it's got demographics going for it (at least for the moment - it won't be nearly as popular once the boomers die off).
In fact, let the boys club have their good walk spoiled and their tailgates and all that other garbage. If being a "major" sport means constant badgering about erectile disfunction or how I'm going to invest my money during the commercial breaks - I'd much rather hang out with the kid's mojo, thanks.
Last time I checked, I didn't want to grow up to be some suburbanite middle manager with problems gettin' it up - and hey look at that I still don't. Thank goodness tennis isn't golf, I say.
goober
Legend
I am surprised that most people are chiming in that golf is easier to learn than tennis. I moved up to the 4.0 level pretty quickly in tennis. I don't know what the equivalent is in golf (may be a 95 ?), but I was no where close to it in golf. To the people who say that golf is easier what were your scores and how long did it take you to get there?
mellofelow
Semi-Pro
I’m glad to see that the recent threads have returned to discuss the main focus of the topic. And that is, ‘Why Golf is more popular than Tennis?’ It seems to me that many of us have different interpretation of the term ‘POPULAR’.
Whether the game of tennis is harder or easier than golf is irrelevant. What really matter is the exposure the sport receives among the general public. For example, football is popular obviously because we watch it on TV, we discuss it at work, and the fans pack the stadiums… the tailgate parties… etc. Compare it to hockey… FOGEDABOUDIT.
Let’s breakdown the popularity of the sport in the following categories:
1) Player participation - seems like every Tom, Dick & Harry are playing golf these days… myself included. Even my company has an annual golf tournament.
2) Retail sales – how many tennis super stores do you know of? Any golf, there’s Golf-Smth, Roger Dunn, Las Vegas golf, heck, even Nevada Golf dropped tennis. This forum’s sponsor, Tennis Warehouse I’ll bet the sales is a mere fraction of golf’s equivalent, TGW (The Golf Warehouse). Just go to any sporting good store and the golf section is at least double the size of tennis.
3) Media exposure – every weekend there’s golf on one of the major network channel.
4) Corporate sponsorship – this is probably the most important factor. It’s no coincident that companies will spend major sum of their budget to gain exposure and entertain the employees and guests. Golf is killing tennis at this department because having a corporate tent at a local golf tournament can entice current and future business deals. In addition, the perk of such generosity can also get you up close and personal with a professional golfer… yes, you can actually play a practice round with a few pros - Not so with tennis.
5) Fans – the name Tiger needs no introduction. More non-golfers know who Tiger is than non-tennis players know who Roger Federer is.
6) Professional earnings – take all the points I mentioned before, this is where the truth lies. The disparity of the top money leader in the last 10 years can tell you where the popularity of the sport has gone. Here’s the list of PGA tour money leader since 1995 (in millions). As you can see, while tennis remained stagnant, golf have exploded over the last 10 years.
1995 – $1.65 – Greg Norman....$5.42 – Pete Sampras
1996 - $1.78 – Tom Lehman.....$3.70 – Pete Sampras
1997 - $2.06 – Tiger Woods.....$6.50 – Pete Sampras
1998 - $2.59 – David Duvall.....$3.93 – Pete Sampras
1999 - $6.61 – Tiger Woods.....$4.27 – Andre Agassi
2000 - $9.19 – Tiger Woods.....$4.70 – Gustavo Kuerten
2001 - $5.69 – Tiger Woods.....$???? - Lleyton Hewitt
2002 - $6.91 – Tiger Woods.....$4.62 – Lleyton Hewitt
2003 - $7.57 – Vijay Singh.......$3.23 – Andy Roddick
2004 - $10.91 – Vijay Singh.....$6.50 – Roger Federer
Whether the game of tennis is harder or easier than golf is irrelevant. What really matter is the exposure the sport receives among the general public. For example, football is popular obviously because we watch it on TV, we discuss it at work, and the fans pack the stadiums… the tailgate parties… etc. Compare it to hockey… FOGEDABOUDIT.
Let’s breakdown the popularity of the sport in the following categories:
1) Player participation - seems like every Tom, Dick & Harry are playing golf these days… myself included. Even my company has an annual golf tournament.
2) Retail sales – how many tennis super stores do you know of? Any golf, there’s Golf-Smth, Roger Dunn, Las Vegas golf, heck, even Nevada Golf dropped tennis. This forum’s sponsor, Tennis Warehouse I’ll bet the sales is a mere fraction of golf’s equivalent, TGW (The Golf Warehouse). Just go to any sporting good store and the golf section is at least double the size of tennis.
3) Media exposure – every weekend there’s golf on one of the major network channel.
4) Corporate sponsorship – this is probably the most important factor. It’s no coincident that companies will spend major sum of their budget to gain exposure and entertain the employees and guests. Golf is killing tennis at this department because having a corporate tent at a local golf tournament can entice current and future business deals. In addition, the perk of such generosity can also get you up close and personal with a professional golfer… yes, you can actually play a practice round with a few pros - Not so with tennis.
5) Fans – the name Tiger needs no introduction. More non-golfers know who Tiger is than non-tennis players know who Roger Federer is.
6) Professional earnings – take all the points I mentioned before, this is where the truth lies. The disparity of the top money leader in the last 10 years can tell you where the popularity of the sport has gone. Here’s the list of PGA tour money leader since 1995 (in millions). As you can see, while tennis remained stagnant, golf have exploded over the last 10 years.
1995 – $1.65 – Greg Norman....$5.42 – Pete Sampras
1996 - $1.78 – Tom Lehman.....$3.70 – Pete Sampras
1997 - $2.06 – Tiger Woods.....$6.50 – Pete Sampras
1998 - $2.59 – David Duvall.....$3.93 – Pete Sampras
1999 - $6.61 – Tiger Woods.....$4.27 – Andre Agassi
2000 - $9.19 – Tiger Woods.....$4.70 – Gustavo Kuerten
2001 - $5.69 – Tiger Woods.....$???? - Lleyton Hewitt
2002 - $6.91 – Tiger Woods.....$4.62 – Lleyton Hewitt
2003 - $7.57 – Vijay Singh.......$3.23 – Andy Roddick
2004 - $10.91 – Vijay Singh.....$6.50 – Roger Federer
I have played about twenty 18 hole rounds of golf, I've taken one lesson, and I've been to a driving range a handful of times. Last time I played I shot 96 on a par-72 course, and I keep proper score - no mulligans, no improving your lie, etc.goober said:
I've played much more tennis than that, every day of summer for a couple of years in high school and even now, at 37, I play 2-3 times a week, and I'm 4.5
It's always hard to say what's easier to learn, etc. If the game is easy, there will typically be less differentiation between people, and that is indeed the case with golf. I have a couple of friends who can shoot under par occasionally at championship caliber courses, and they only play weekends, although they played on high school golf teams, etc. They are shooting rounds that would occasionally be competitive with a pro. Is there anyone anywhere who plays tennis that sporadically that could do more than take a lucky point or two against a pro tennis player?
Heck, most people who play golf have occasionally birdied a hole, and can often par holes. In match play, that means you'd have a small chance of taking a hole against a pro, and of halving a couple of holes. No way can anyone do something comparable with a tennis pro.
For me, golf is a much easier game to play, if I took it even half as seriously as tennis, I'd get to low 80s at least.
goober
Legend
random1 said:
Well that is a pretty good golf score. I haven't found golf as easy.
Tennis on the otherhand I found a lot easier. I learned to play tennis as a teenager and played just one year noncompetitively. I had a couple lessons from an ex-basketball coach who only gave me very basic instruction. I stopped tennis for 15 years and started playing again. I probably was a 3.0 and moved to a 4.0 within a year playing 2-4 times a week.
Babblelot
Professional
Has anyone other than me heard that golf's popularity is on the wane?
"Yet a funny thing happened on the way to nirvana. The golf boom has fizzled unambiguously in the past few years, and threatens to become a king-sized bust. Take the number of rounds played in the U.S., which dropped (3.1%) to 502.4 million last year from 518.4 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation. This year threatens a third consecutive decline. Florida-based Golf Data recorded a 2.7% drop year-to- date in rounds played through May, the latest figures it has compiled.
After decades of fevered growth, the number of golfers also has flattened, stabilizing around 25 million to 26 million for the past six years. Memories of the sudden decline in national tennis participation -- between 1987 and '97, the tennis-playing portion of the U.S. population shrank to 11% from 17% -- haunt golf's boosters and industry insiders. A 1999 study by the National Golf Foundation and consultant McKinsey & Co. showed that golf was losing about as many players each year as the three million or so it managed to attract. In the industry, this has been dubbed the "commitment" problem.
Likewise, new golf-course openings have fallen precipitously in the past two years, after a steady climb through the 1990s. Openings jumped to 398.5 in 2000 (a nine-hole course equals half a course) from 224 in 1990, only to fall to 220 in 2002. The data fairly neatly track the trajectory of the stock market over the same span, which may not be coincidental...
Last year, a record 50 golf courses suffered severe financial distress, resulting in their foreclosure, conversion to other use or fire sale. There are no figures available yet for 2003, but there are plenty of horror stories. Barron's has learned, for example, that in June a high-end, daily-fee course in Houston, the Fish Creek Golf Club, was handed over to lender Woodforest National Bank, which had a $6.5 million loan on the year-old, $14.5 million property. Among the equity holders who took a bath on the course were golf nut and entrepreneur Charles Schwab, and the Australian-born touring golf pro Steve Elkington, designer of the course's 27 holes. A spokesman for Schwab had no comment, and Barron's couldn't reach Elkington or a Woodforest spokesman...
The story is much the same in the golf equipment and apparel industries, though the carnage hit earlier than in golf real estate. Zany expansion in the mid-1990s quickly sated the market for titanium drivers, fancy golf duds and the like. Apparel brands such as Carlyle Golf and Glengate Apparel are now but distant memories, as are equipment makers Black Rock, Snake Eyes, Coyote Sports, TearDrops and Arnold Palmer Golf. All either filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, were sold for peanuts or survive as zombie companies in the pink-sheets stock market...
Despite the swell of aging boomers, other U.S. demographics might not favor the sport. Golf has made little headway in the black and Hispanic communities, notwithstanding Tiger Woods' celebrity or the Professional Golf Association's First Tee program, designed to expose minority youth to golf. Rooney and other experts blame several factors for this failure, including the paucity of available courses near major cities and, for many, golf's prohibitive costs...."
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsandtrends/20030815-laing.html?refresh=on
It seems golf's rise in popularity is directly related to the stockmarket bubble...nothing more. Maybe after revisting this in 2010, golf's popularity will have dropped as perspicuously as tennis' did between '87-'97.
Where are American sports enthusiasts to turn??? Spaghetti and hot dog eating competions I suppose...
"Yet a funny thing happened on the way to nirvana. The golf boom has fizzled unambiguously in the past few years, and threatens to become a king-sized bust. Take the number of rounds played in the U.S., which dropped (3.1%) to 502.4 million last year from 518.4 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation. This year threatens a third consecutive decline. Florida-based Golf Data recorded a 2.7% drop year-to- date in rounds played through May, the latest figures it has compiled.
After decades of fevered growth, the number of golfers also has flattened, stabilizing around 25 million to 26 million for the past six years. Memories of the sudden decline in national tennis participation -- between 1987 and '97, the tennis-playing portion of the U.S. population shrank to 11% from 17% -- haunt golf's boosters and industry insiders. A 1999 study by the National Golf Foundation and consultant McKinsey & Co. showed that golf was losing about as many players each year as the three million or so it managed to attract. In the industry, this has been dubbed the "commitment" problem.
Likewise, new golf-course openings have fallen precipitously in the past two years, after a steady climb through the 1990s. Openings jumped to 398.5 in 2000 (a nine-hole course equals half a course) from 224 in 1990, only to fall to 220 in 2002. The data fairly neatly track the trajectory of the stock market over the same span, which may not be coincidental...
Last year, a record 50 golf courses suffered severe financial distress, resulting in their foreclosure, conversion to other use or fire sale. There are no figures available yet for 2003, but there are plenty of horror stories. Barron's has learned, for example, that in June a high-end, daily-fee course in Houston, the Fish Creek Golf Club, was handed over to lender Woodforest National Bank, which had a $6.5 million loan on the year-old, $14.5 million property. Among the equity holders who took a bath on the course were golf nut and entrepreneur Charles Schwab, and the Australian-born touring golf pro Steve Elkington, designer of the course's 27 holes. A spokesman for Schwab had no comment, and Barron's couldn't reach Elkington or a Woodforest spokesman...
The story is much the same in the golf equipment and apparel industries, though the carnage hit earlier than in golf real estate. Zany expansion in the mid-1990s quickly sated the market for titanium drivers, fancy golf duds and the like. Apparel brands such as Carlyle Golf and Glengate Apparel are now but distant memories, as are equipment makers Black Rock, Snake Eyes, Coyote Sports, TearDrops and Arnold Palmer Golf. All either filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, were sold for peanuts or survive as zombie companies in the pink-sheets stock market...
Despite the swell of aging boomers, other U.S. demographics might not favor the sport. Golf has made little headway in the black and Hispanic communities, notwithstanding Tiger Woods' celebrity or the Professional Golf Association's First Tee program, designed to expose minority youth to golf. Rooney and other experts blame several factors for this failure, including the paucity of available courses near major cities and, for many, golf's prohibitive costs...."
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsandtrends/20030815-laing.html?refresh=on
It seems golf's rise in popularity is directly related to the stockmarket bubble...nothing more. Maybe after revisting this in 2010, golf's popularity will have dropped as perspicuously as tennis' did between '87-'97.
Where are American sports enthusiasts to turn??? Spaghetti and hot dog eating competions I suppose...
Babblelot
Professional
An uplifting update on the state of tennis.
Study Shows Tennis Participation On The Rise
By Tennis Week
12/01/2005
If you noticed your local courts getting a bit more crowded this year, there's a good reason. The total number of American recreational tennis players and frequent players both increased significantly in 2005, according to a soon to be released USTA/Tennis Industry Association tennis participation study.
http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=14342&bannerregion=
Study Shows Tennis Participation On The Rise
By Tennis Week
12/01/2005
If you noticed your local courts getting a bit more crowded this year, there's a good reason. The total number of American recreational tennis players and frequent players both increased significantly in 2005, according to a soon to be released USTA/Tennis Industry Association tennis participation study.
http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=14342&bannerregion=
Another positive story although it's a little over a year old.
http://www.tenniswire.org/archives/2004/sep/pr_197.html
http://www.tenniswire.org/archives/2004/sep/pr_197.html
ChipNCharge
Professional
A friend of mine had an interesting take on this. He said people would be lined up at the gate if they had to pay to play tennis. Meaning that the mentality people have is that if it's free, it must not be any good.
Chip
Chip
Z-Man
Professional
Anyone holding a golf club is considered a golfer.
Great points all around. Demographics, obesity, marketing, corporate America, etc are all part of the puzzle.
An observation:
I played a full round of golf for the first time last year and scored better than half of a group of 25 people who all consider themselves to be "golfers". What this tells me is that most of the golfers in America totally suck at it. And yet they really enjoy golf. Tennis is much less forgiving. Never having played golf, I could go out and hang with what I would term recent immigrants to planet golf--young men and working class types whose families have never belonged to a country club. Even if these people were in shape (they aren't), it would take them years to become proficient enough at tennis to enjoy it.
Mastering both sports is very difficult, but golf offers a quicker payout to the casual / novice player. It's sort of like cards--bridge vs poker. Both take years to master, but anyone, no matter how mentally flabby, can sit down and play basic poker. Bridge takes time to learn before you can enjoy it, and then you have to find other people who have also made the effort.
Which leads me to another observation: Most of the men I see out at the courts are at least 3.5. On the other hand, most golfers can't break 100. People who are still playing tennis these days are the ones who stuck it out to become proficient. (Women are different--there are lots more beginners playing, the women's tour is more popular, and around here tennis is kind of like golf for women minus the beer and cigars.) Becoming a tennis player and enjoying tennis takes years. Anyone holding a golf club is considered a golfer. Planet golf is kind of like America. Move here, and you're an American. Becoming a citizen of planet tennis just requires too much work for most people.
Great points all around. Demographics, obesity, marketing, corporate America, etc are all part of the puzzle.
An observation:
I played a full round of golf for the first time last year and scored better than half of a group of 25 people who all consider themselves to be "golfers". What this tells me is that most of the golfers in America totally suck at it. And yet they really enjoy golf. Tennis is much less forgiving. Never having played golf, I could go out and hang with what I would term recent immigrants to planet golf--young men and working class types whose families have never belonged to a country club. Even if these people were in shape (they aren't), it would take them years to become proficient enough at tennis to enjoy it.
Mastering both sports is very difficult, but golf offers a quicker payout to the casual / novice player. It's sort of like cards--bridge vs poker. Both take years to master, but anyone, no matter how mentally flabby, can sit down and play basic poker. Bridge takes time to learn before you can enjoy it, and then you have to find other people who have also made the effort.
Which leads me to another observation: Most of the men I see out at the courts are at least 3.5. On the other hand, most golfers can't break 100. People who are still playing tennis these days are the ones who stuck it out to become proficient. (Women are different--there are lots more beginners playing, the women's tour is more popular, and around here tennis is kind of like golf for women minus the beer and cigars.) Becoming a tennis player and enjoying tennis takes years. Anyone holding a golf club is considered a golfer. Planet golf is kind of like America. Move here, and you're an American. Becoming a citizen of planet tennis just requires too much work for most people.
Hmm? You stand, you hit the ball. You walk, not run, to the next hole. No, I guess most people ride the cart to the next hole these days, don't they? So how in the world does that compare to a good game of tennis...particularly singles tennis? Here's a correlation for you: golf's rise in popularity coincides with the rise in obesity in this country. I mean, it's a perfect "sport" for obese, out of shape people. Ideal!
This article is full of inconsistencies. It's a terrible article.
For one the author says tennis expanded beyond the country club while golf did not - golf remained an "asperational" sport.
and
"The irony is that golf has thrived and tennis withered precisely because tennis has worked so hard to expand into a wider demographic. In the '70s and '80s, more public courts were built, more outreach programs were started, and racquets got cheaper and easier to use.
Golf has shed its clubby trappings much more slowly. ... For better or worse, golf has remained an aspirational sport in the American consciousness, an emblem of the road to success and prosperity. Golf's tent got bigger—and more meritocratic (even Tony Soprano plays golf) [why this makes golf more "meritocratic," I can't figure out] —but never lost its peaked shape [I don't know what "never lost its peaked shape" means].
Tennis, by becoming a mere sport, plunged into an identity crisis, and was left out of the bounties of American aspiration. [are baseball, football, and basketball "mere" sports as well? They are tremendously popular in the US. Do they have an identity crisis?] ['left out of the bounties of American aspiration," what the h*ll does that mean?]
Then the author says:
"The final insult is how, despite tennis's efforts to woo the people, the sport has never shaken its vestigial associations to the old WASP aristocracy. "
So first tennis spread out of the country club and onto the public courts, and then it never shook its connection to the old WASP aristocracy. Can't have it both ways here.
And the author says that golf got both bigger and more "meritocratic." But doesn't meritocratic mean limited on the basis of those who are deemed to be part of the meritocracy, thereby limiting its appeal rather than broadening it?
And does the author imply that golf didn't spread on to the public courses and that it remained in the country club. Maybe a little less so than tennis, but only a little. Golf courses not at country clubs and open to the public abound today.
And the author is on the wrong track if he blames equipment changes on tennis' supposed troubles (I think tennis' troubles are exaggerated, especially from a world wide perspective, rather than a parochial US perspective). Golf has undegone just as radical equipment changes. And like in tennis the changes have made it easier to play each sport rather than harder.
To the degree that tennis is less popular than golf in the US, I think it is because you must play tennis at higher skill level to enjoy it than is necessary in golf (it can be fun to ride around a green landscaped golf course even if you are spraying and losing golf balls all over the place).
But make no mistake about it, to play either game well takes a very high degree of skill - skills that to master might be, just might be, a little more difficult to master in tennis than in golf, since in tennis you have an opponent out to beat you (in golf the course is the primary opponent and in any case you can have a handicap to make things more even), and you have a moving ball to hit. But make no mistake about it, golf is a difficult game to master as well.
I think the real reason why more people are apt to "play" golf than tennis is that tennis is more strenuous, and most people don't keep themselves in good enough shape to play it, while golf, especially using golf carts, takes a modicum of effort. And the population is aging. It is even harder to play tennis rather than golf as you age, especially if you haven't kept at it and have becom sedentary.
For one the author says tennis expanded beyond the country club while golf did not - golf remained an "asperational" sport.
and
"The irony is that golf has thrived and tennis withered precisely because tennis has worked so hard to expand into a wider demographic. In the '70s and '80s, more public courts were built, more outreach programs were started, and racquets got cheaper and easier to use.
Golf has shed its clubby trappings much more slowly. ... For better or worse, golf has remained an aspirational sport in the American consciousness, an emblem of the road to success and prosperity. Golf's tent got bigger—and more meritocratic (even Tony Soprano plays golf) [why this makes golf more "meritocratic," I can't figure out] —but never lost its peaked shape [I don't know what "never lost its peaked shape" means].
Tennis, by becoming a mere sport, plunged into an identity crisis, and was left out of the bounties of American aspiration. [are baseball, football, and basketball "mere" sports as well? They are tremendously popular in the US. Do they have an identity crisis?] ['left out of the bounties of American aspiration," what the h*ll does that mean?]
Then the author says:
"The final insult is how, despite tennis's efforts to woo the people, the sport has never shaken its vestigial associations to the old WASP aristocracy. "
So first tennis spread out of the country club and onto the public courts, and then it never shook its connection to the old WASP aristocracy. Can't have it both ways here.
And the author says that golf got both bigger and more "meritocratic." But doesn't meritocratic mean limited on the basis of those who are deemed to be part of the meritocracy, thereby limiting its appeal rather than broadening it?
And does the author imply that golf didn't spread on to the public courses and that it remained in the country club. Maybe a little less so than tennis, but only a little. Golf courses not at country clubs and open to the public abound today.
And the author is on the wrong track if he blames equipment changes on tennis' supposed troubles (I think tennis' troubles are exaggerated, especially from a world wide perspective, rather than a parochial US perspective). Golf has undegone just as radical equipment changes. And like in tennis the changes have made it easier to play each sport rather than harder.
To the degree that tennis is less popular than golf in the US, I think it is because you must play tennis at higher skill level to enjoy it than is necessary in golf (it can be fun to ride around a green landscaped golf course even if you are spraying and losing golf balls all over the place).
But make no mistake about it, to play either game well takes a very high degree of skill - skills that to master might be, just might be, a little more difficult to master in tennis than in golf, since in tennis you have an opponent out to beat you (in golf the course is the primary opponent and in any case you can have a handicap to make things more even), and you have a moving ball to hit. But make no mistake about it, golf is a difficult game to master as well.
I think the real reason why more people are apt to "play" golf than tennis is that tennis is more strenuous, and most people don't keep themselves in good enough shape to play it, while golf, especially using golf carts, takes a modicum of effort. And the population is aging. It is even harder to play tennis rather than golf as you age, especially if you haven't kept at it and have becom sedentary.
tennisjunkiela
Semi-Pro
i liked the article generally but i think that its analysis is way too academic.
tennis' decline, in America, seems linked to several factors:
1) First and foremost, the lack of an dominant American male player.
Imagine if Roddick was dominating like Federer is? we wouldn't be able to find a spot on any tennis court in America. The heyday of tennis coincided with great American champions - McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, - many of whom were brash or crass, depending on your perspective. Now, the greatest player is a respectful well-behaved Swiss - doesn't generate same interest.
By contrast in golf, Tiger Woods has single-handedly elevated golf to its current level of popularity. in fact, when he had his down years while re-building his swing, golf popularity and sales dropped in tow. now that he's back on top, the crowd is back.
2) Tennis seems to be in denial about the demographic reality happening in America - the US is fastly becoming more diverse (by 2040, US will be majority non-white) and, the growth in either sport of golf or tennis is going to come from luring more minorities to these sports. Tiger has been able to accomplish this in golf in a very non-threatening way - he doesn't consider himself black (he's "calabrasian = caucasian, black and asian), he's race-neutral or neutered, depending once again, on your perspective.
On the contrary, Serena and Venus have also helped tennis to grow by luring more minorities but, they are much more polarizing. they are brash, opinionated, think very highly of themselves, think that theycan accomplish anything they set their minds to do and most importantly, they are very black identified - sounds familiar? (can you say Muhammad Ali). So while golf people have embraced a "black" Tiger Woods taking over the previous all-white sport of golf, tennis aficinados don't seem to be so happy about the self-proclaimed "Ghetto Cinderellas" taking over the previous all-white sport of tennis.
Conclusion -
1. Roddick and Blake need to get their act together and start dominating and develop a compelling rivalry - the American masses will tune in religiously.
2. The tennis world needs to realize that the days of "all-american" (i.e. all-white) Chrissie Evert and Traci Austin are gone. Time to embrace the Williams sisters for their accomplishments - end of story
tennis' decline, in America, seems linked to several factors:
1) First and foremost, the lack of an dominant American male player.
Imagine if Roddick was dominating like Federer is? we wouldn't be able to find a spot on any tennis court in America. The heyday of tennis coincided with great American champions - McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, - many of whom were brash or crass, depending on your perspective. Now, the greatest player is a respectful well-behaved Swiss - doesn't generate same interest.
By contrast in golf, Tiger Woods has single-handedly elevated golf to its current level of popularity. in fact, when he had his down years while re-building his swing, golf popularity and sales dropped in tow. now that he's back on top, the crowd is back.
2) Tennis seems to be in denial about the demographic reality happening in America - the US is fastly becoming more diverse (by 2040, US will be majority non-white) and, the growth in either sport of golf or tennis is going to come from luring more minorities to these sports. Tiger has been able to accomplish this in golf in a very non-threatening way - he doesn't consider himself black (he's "calabrasian = caucasian, black and asian), he's race-neutral or neutered, depending once again, on your perspective.
On the contrary, Serena and Venus have also helped tennis to grow by luring more minorities but, they are much more polarizing. they are brash, opinionated, think very highly of themselves, think that theycan accomplish anything they set their minds to do and most importantly, they are very black identified - sounds familiar? (can you say Muhammad Ali). So while golf people have embraced a "black" Tiger Woods taking over the previous all-white sport of golf, tennis aficinados don't seem to be so happy about the self-proclaimed "Ghetto Cinderellas" taking over the previous all-white sport of tennis.
Conclusion -
1. Roddick and Blake need to get their act together and start dominating and develop a compelling rivalry - the American masses will tune in religiously.
2. The tennis world needs to realize that the days of "all-american" (i.e. all-white) Chrissie Evert and Traci Austin are gone. Time to embrace the Williams sisters for their accomplishments - end of story
Docalex007
Hall of Fame
ChipNCharge said:
I would disagree with this perspective. Here in Germany one has to pay $5-10 per hour. Nobody, and i mean NOBODY is lining up to play. My dad spoke with the Sports Director/Admin for the city of Trier (pop. 100,000) and told him the game of tennis virtually does not exist in the city with the exception of a few clubs where membership is required. He said the decline started around 01'. I'm not sure why.
Btw, all courts here are red clay. We also have a lot of indoor carpet courts (which i'm playing on all the time now). My lesson once I got here and first time playing on clay....don't wear nice shoes. Anyway, I am a big promoter of the game and I hope to see Tennis' popularity grow in the near future.
Similar threads
