The discipline of footbag golf has always had its supporters -- and detractors. The debate about the validity of footbag golf as a part of footbag sports cropped up recently in discussions on the footbag listserve. The desire to eliminate golf runs high among those who are computer and Internet savvy, so the game has been trashed pretty bad on that forum. The reaction of those outside the listserve circle, however, is much less likely to have an itchy trigger finger pointed at golf.
To be as fair as possible, I've always disliked golf, and thought is was kind of silly. Then again, I've always been really, really bad at footbag golf and may have an axe to grind. After having admitted that, I will try to present the issues of the golf debate in some semblance of objectivity. Take my interpretation for what it's worth; objectivity in reporting is as big a lie as there is.
Maybe so. The goal, after all, is to land the footbag in a capturing device; not exactly a drop. Despite the lack of consecutive kicks, golf still promotes the same concept that other footbag games do: consistency and accuracy. Golf is a distinctive study of foot angles, bag contact points, and contact velocity, and their effect on the resulting flight path of a full range of footbag types from rock hard to big, floppy watermelons.
Now, if someone could rectify these observations with the fact that I can kick 5,000 consecutive on demand, but can't consistently make a 5-ft putt, they would bestow a great gift of peace and tranquility on my life. Obviously, footbag golf requires some unique skills that are not found in consecutives and freestyle. The question remains, then: are the skills and game of footbag golf valid to footbag in general?
Really? Accessibility is fine if you happen to have the mindset and skills that golf require. Other people can just as easily tune into net or freestyle. And I don't think anyone will dispute the simplicity of the concept of consecutives; that too is as old as the hills, and footbag is just a recent object to test a person's ability to exert control over his/her environment. The `copycat' argument, too, cuts both ways: footbag golf is also really contrived and really quite stupid because of that. I mean, does anyone really know all the rules of footbag golf? The social aspect, while real, can also backfire. How many footbag golf players have been in a group with a sour-faced, nitpicking, dead-serious golf player? I have, and it's not exactly less threatening, or more fun.
Some say footbag golf is inherently stupid, and providing access to footbag through such silliness is self-defeating. Yet, golf may be stupid only to those (like me) who have alot of trouble with it. The only cold, hard fact I can throw out is that footbag golf consistently attracts the largest field of players of any of the footbag games. Score one for the accessibility crowd.
All mixed up in the debate of promotion is teevee and the media. Again, I must admit my bias: I think teevee is stupider than footbag golf. I own two golf holes, but I don't own a single teevee set. That aside, the conventional wisdom is that the media, and especially teevee since footbag is such an action-oriented activity, is crucial to footbag promotion. If you get the media interested in footbag, then you can get other people to support footbag, since they will inevitably get a slice of the coverage. If you do get media coverage - especially that action teevee shot - the enthusiast's logic concludes that the masses will flock to footbag.
So what's this got to do with footbag golf? Golf is the one game that has been effectively ridiculed by media. At least three infamous teevee spots come to mind that were edited and presented to make footbag look stupid, and they all used golf to do it. When teevee is seen as the holy grail of footbag promotion, any negative coverage can be disastrous. How can the fledgling sport of footbag afford to have golf out there, begging to be ridiculed? Dennis Jones asserts that teevee is so important to footbag that if it doesn't look good on teevee, it shouldn't be done.
A fact that detractors overlook, though, is that even without golf, those same camera crews and editors would have come up with some other way to ridicule footbag. Even though footbag golf may have been the most convenient target, there is little or no doubt that the unhappy cameraperson and the sadistic editor would have butchered our little sport, no matter what. Take a close look. Even the most respected sports get ridiculed on teevee sometimes. Out of all the media coverage footbag has gotten, very little has been negative. When it does happen, people look for a reason, and golf may just be the convenient scapegoat.
Is teevee the holy grail of footbag growth? To a certain extent, yes; teevee programming is as real to many people as real life is, and sometimes more so. But then again, no; I've landed many teevee spots -- all of them very positive coverage of freestyle or net -- and I've never been able to trace a significant jump in footbag interest because of it. I'm sure others would contend otherwise. Media coverage has at least expanded the public's awareness of footbag. Within the last four years, I have seen the average person's knowledge go from almost nothing, to knowing what footbag -- not just Hacky Sack (TM) -- is.
Getting back to the subject of footbag golf, the question regarding promotion remains. Does its value of accessibility outweigh the possible damage that can occur when media is given a convenient target to ridicule? Your answer is as good an any.