Shotlink - By the Numbers

I've got a very bad feeling about this Shotlink laser scoring system. It's a tidal wave that won't be stopped any time soon. But, it's a bad idea. And, bad for golf. There, I've used the word 'bad' four times now in the first paragraph. But, how do I really feel?

For the unwashed masses not familiar with Shotlink, it's a method of procedure for quantifying every aspect of every PGA player's game. Shotlink sets up numerous laser measuring devices along the highways, byways, fairways, bunkers and greens of tour locations. The lasers track the ball location of each player at all times during the game, set and match. Data is sent back to a mainframe computer and crunched into facts, factoids and other relatively useless information.

Some are comparing it to baseball's box scores. If this were a valid comparison, I might go along. But, it's not. Baseball has two sets of numbers: box scores; and the mind-numbing factoids that are spewed relentlessly by sportcasters to fill up dead air on the radio and television.

With box scores, you can "read" the game. You've heard the stories - and perhaps it's been your pleasure - where fathers replay a baseball game for their son by reading the box scores and filling in the names of the players. A game of golf is just such a story. It has anticipation at the beginning; the highs and lows of the various participants during the match; and - often times - a climactic ending. Statistics, on the other hand, don't provide a "story." They provide fluff.

Here's an example. The baseball sportscaster notes that "Seeger" is coming to the plate and says, "Seeger has failed to get on base against left-handed pitchers in the last three innings of home games 72% of the time this year." And, the baseball "illiterati" nod their collective heads of knuckle knowingly. The fact is, Seeger is probably hitting .280 and fails to get on base 72% of the time in any situation.

Golf is a story that is artistic and has dignity. I just hate to see it reduced to a numbers game. What do you think?

Lemme no.


S. Arthur Yegge, Philosopher