Thanks Jon. Appreciate your thinking about this with me.
-
Just to play it out: Let’s say 10 of 50 “Just play” golfers improved by a few strokes. And 18 of 50 “Practice” golfers improved by same. That would be statistically significant.
-
I agree that golfers have a large range of needs. But research is done on “practice” and “coaching” in other domains across very different people.
See for example the research on CBT (cognitive behavior therapy). People show up with all kinds of mental issues and areas where they need to get better.
- I agree that Big Golf Companies have little incentive to fund this. Same with Big Pharma. Their job is to sell products. But there is a separately funded batch of basic science research.
Perhaps that falls to the USGA? They’ve got ~200 million/year. Not much! But they have, for example, $2 million for turf experiments. Maybe same amount for outsourced “practice experiments” and we could learn a lot. First Tee is $96 million. Nice! But gee, there’s gotta be $ out there for real research in this area.
The hypothesis might be - if golfers get better, they buy more tee times and equipment purchases. Yes, while “Quick Fix” lovers are a big part of our business, “Practical Golf” type tribe members (genuinely willing to practice and trying to ascertain how) is a meaningful segment, too.