Do we really need 14 clubs?

[delc]

Actually, subscription money only makes up a moderate percentage of the turnover. Advertising and investment contributes far more.
The BBC would rather spend your licence money (compulsory tax to the point where most people accept it and deem terrestrial as 'free to air' where thats simply not true) on costume drama and 'celebrity' reality contests than the golf, the football or pretty much any other sport.

Sky have made more sports accessible to more than 10 million people ober a course of planned investment and promotion rather than this seemingly underhand theft tactic that seems to be being purported.

If you don't think it represents valie for money then thats fine, thats your cultural values at work. I am sure many out there wont think your golf subs represent value for money and as you pay them, I would think you would disagree.

But with most TV channels you either pay a subscription (e.g. BBC licence fee) and get advert free viewing, or put up with adverts and get free viewing. Only Sky seems to do both!

 

[GreiginFife]

But with most TV channels you either pay a subscription (e.g. BBC licence fee) and get advert free viewing, or put up with adverts and get free viewing. Only Sky seems to do both!

The wonderful world of capitalism.
Do BBC not subversively advertise thier own programming...? Good gig they have sown up there. Just because its not commercial adverts, doesn't mean they aren't adverts. And you get no choice whether you pay for it. Value for money? I never watch BBC these days yet forced to pay, is that value for money?

 

[TheJezster]

But with most TV channels you either pay a subscription (e.g. BBC licence fee) and get advert free viewing, or put up with adverts and get free viewing. Only Sky seems to do both!

Not during films they don't. They open up far far more to the general public than terrestrial tv ever did. Sky have single handedly revolutionised the way we watch sport in this country, and all for not that money really when you consider what's available. If sky didn't exist people would moan that there wasn't enough sport on tv.

 

[GreiginFife]

Not during films they don't. They open up far far more to the general public than terrestrial tv ever did. Sky have single handedly revolutionised the way we watch sport in this country, and all for not that money really when you consider what's available. If sky didn't exist people would moan that there wasn't enough sport on tv.

A lot of sports would probably vanish in a commercial sense without Sky.
Could you ever see the BBC giving mainstream coverage of speedway or even the explosion of the darts?
Even companies like Virgin who have a huge amount of broadcast capability don't and rely on Sky.

But when all is said and done I am still allowed 14 clubs in my bag although I may only have 12 or 13 depending on time of year.

So like TV and paying subs for things, the option is there should I wish... doesn't mean I will always take the option... but I might.

And so like life, everything goes in cycles. Billy C would be proud.

 

[delc]

The wonderful world of capitalism.
Do BBC not subversively advertise thier own programming...? Good gig they have sown up there. Just because its not commercial adverts, doesn't mean they aren't adverts. And you get no choice whether you pay for it. Value for money? I never watch BBC these days yet forced to pay, is that value for money?

So, do you never watch The Open Championship, the Ladies British Open, the Snooker World Championship, Wimbledon Tennis, Grand Prix Motor Racing, or Match of the Day Football on BBC TV? I still think the Beeb does a much better job of televising sport than Sky when it gets the chance to do so.

 

[GreiginFife]

So, do you never watch The Open Championship, the Ladies British Open, the Snooker World Championship, Wimbledon Tennis, Grand Prix Motor Racing, or Match of the Day Football on BBC TV? I still think the Beeb does a much better job of televising sport than Sky when it gets the chance to do so.

The Open aside, no I watch none of the others. So what I am forced to pay does not reconcile as VFM for one golf tournament.
Whether they do a good job or not is immaterial, it is also subjective, the fact is that like everything discussed on this thread it is about choices. The BBC has the choice to bring you more golf or sport in general by investing the money you and I pay. They choose to invest in Strictly Come Dancing and Downton Abbey instead.

I suppose you could say it is their 'bag choice' as to how much they carry, and like 14 clubs the option is there should they choose to... simple fact is they don't, they are more a 3 clubs and a putter corporation.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I agree that some events, both on the US and European tour are boring to watch and won with -20 or more. To that effect, the courses are too easy and rarely except for flagship events is the rough ever penal and so for most of these top golfers, even if they are off line they can still find a way to the green and save par, if not better. The issue is that if places showing televised events (randomly say the Austrian Open) is that for huge time before and after, members will have to put up with the work and results to produce penal rough. As people of limited ability (handicap golfers) hacking around a course that is suddenly so hard isn't fun and what they pay membership for, just for the circus to roll into town for four days a year irrespective of the revenue that may generate for the host

That said, what else do you do to make it a bigger test? Land is limited so you can't rely purely on length and why just make courses longer. Perhaps more aggressive flag positioning may be one answer (I don't have the solution) but until something is done the birdie fest will continue and that is boring although panders to what a US market in particular wants

 

[North Mimms]

I played in a 5 clubs and a putter competition yesterday. My choice of clubs was 3-wood. 4-hybrid, 6 and 8 irons, plus a gap wedge. Despite not putting very well I scored 30 points, and the winner of the comp scored 38 points. Today with a full set of clubs and putting a bit better, off the same tees, I still only managed 33 points. Quite honestly in the 5 club comp I didn't miss the other clubs, apart from maybe my sand iron a couple of times. I was able to shorten shots by gripping down and making a shorter swing, and lengthen them by holding the grip right at the top and making a longer than normal swing. Begs the question why we really need 14 clubs? :mmm:

I think it was my Mr Mimms that scored the 38 points.
My suggestion that he could sell half his clubs and play just as well was not well received...

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I think I have 10-12 clubs in my bag and don't feel the need to have the maximum number. Some rounds I will not use 2 or 3 clubs at all but I leave those in just in case. A lot will depend on the type of course. Some need you to use all your clubs, the poorer ones require a half set only.