“Well,” announces a less than happy looking chicken to the clearly satisfied egg. “I guess that settles that old argument.”

It’s a brilliant joke and I was reminded of it this week during a Twitter discussion about the role of professional golf in driving recreational participation.

There’s a chicken and egg element to that discussion, too. Do the feats of the game’s top players drive people to take up the game or do people become enamoured with the feats of the game’s top players once they have experienced and understood golf?

The reality is probably some combination of both, but the discussion is an important one because it gets to the very essence of why people play.

If, for example, all professional golf disappeared tomorrow what would be the impact on the Wednesday comp at your home club next week? What about in 10 years?

"Do the feats of the game’s top players drive people to take up the game or do people become enamoured with the feats of the game’s top players once they have experienced and understood golf?" - Rod Morri.

Similarly, while recreational golf is in a Covid-driven boom right now what are the ramifications for Tour golf if we revert to a shrinking, pre-pandemic participation rate?

The Twitter discussion referenced earlier came on the back of an article in an online Indian publication called The Wire.

The story was about the game’s failure to gain much traction in that country despite the outstanding Olympic performance of Aditi Ashok.

Authors Samraat Basu and Aman Misra conclude the problem with golf is its ‘languid’ nature and suggest a major overhaul in format – similar to T20 cricket – is what’s required to grow its popularity.

This isn’t the first time this flawed argument has been put forward nor will it be the last but what it fails to recognise is that that the issue for golf among non-golfers has nothing to do with format.

Golf’s ‘problem’ is actually quite simple: it’s complexity. Golf is chess where most sports are chequers.

The game has in fact dabbled in shorter, simpler formats plenty of times and it simply hasn’t worked.

And the reason it hasn’t worked is because it simultaneously turns off existing golf fans while looking exactly the same as 72-hole strokeplay to the newcomer.

As a TV spectacle golf does not translate well. No matter how good the picture quality or the graphics, it is impossible to convey the myriad elements involved in any given golf shot.

While a golfer watching a screen understands innately the importance of lie, wind, elevation, hazard placement, green shape, pin position and a host of other variables, to the non-golfer it all looks pretty much the same.

Even if explained these things make no real sense and to someone who has never held a club and tried to solve the puzzle themselves, it certainly doesn’t make for compelling viewing.

The truth about golf is that it is a game that needs to be experienced to be understood and while televised golf may have a role to play in attracting new participants it is merely one small step along the road.

There is a reason the vast majority of people who watch golf on television are players themselves.

It is simplistic to think a shorter format would make golf more appealing to the masses and while many within the game support more varied formats at the professional level that is about the interest of existing fans, not those yet to convert.

The equation for golf to grow is the same in 2021 as it was in the 1500’s when the game developed.

Put clubs in people’s hands and let them try the game and it will thrive. Try to sell them some TV gimmick and we may as well give up now.