Brandel Likely To Get A Visit From Camp Ponte Vedra Police
;)
There were new set pieces (more cactus!) and a little more spunk in this year's State of the Pro Game discussion from Tucson. The first by-product of last year's marriage between NBC and Golf Channel managed to address the everyday game in a rushed final segment last year and though they didn't get that far this year, they got through the tedious Tiger talk in one segement before saying stuff that must have had the monitors in Ponte Vedra picking up the red phone.
There were the belly putter/pro-bifurcation arguments from Brandel Chamblee and Nick Faldo, which if presented to a jury would supersede anything coming from the governing bodies' case for one set of rules.
FALDO: “It’s called a golf swing, not a golf anchor. If the amateurs – for the enjoyment of the game, let them do whatever they like. But for professionals, I think we should start looking at all our rules, or quite a few on the equipment, like the size of the driver face.”
CHAMBLEE: “I am all for two sets of rules for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is eliminating the long putter in the professional ranks and allows – to Nick’s point – to provide a forum which allows you to actually control the motion of the putter without nerves or feel or touch actually affecting the motion….So they could make the game simultaneously more interesting at the professional level, more interesting for us to call it and more fun for the recreational golfer if they would do this.”
Chamblee also advocated bifurcation to the make the professional game more interesting, words that ten years ago would have gotten him a 30-day suspension, or, at the very least, marched off the set in a David Leadbetter Swing Link.
The size of a golf club, the moment of inertia, the size of the head is limited in the professional and amateur ranks. You should draw it back in the professional ranks, let them make the club as big as they want in the amateur ranks and again to your point, Johnny, the spring effect, they could lower that in the professional ranks. Every hundredth of a point they lower it, is worth five yards when you swing it 100 miles an hour.
So they could make the game simultaneously more interesting at the professional level, more interesting for us to call it and more fun for the recreational golfer if they would do this. The average golfer hits the ball 195 yards; they need bigger heads; they need spring effect; they need long putters. You want to grow the game? Let them have fun and do it.
But it was Brandel's resounding shoot-down of the Commissioner's Q-School-killing "fiscal year" schedule that will earn him a visit from Oxford shirt-wearing men armed with corporate-logoed leather folios.
If I was a betting man, I would bet this is a done deal and it's going to happen. And frankly I think it's quite sad. Every year there's one or two examples of a guy coming out of school or making it through Q‑School and having a huge effect.
Case in point, Y.E. Yang was the last guy to get his tour card in 2008 and won a PGA Championship in 2009.
Another case in point, Sang‑Moon Bae, he's here, he's playing. Now, tip your cap to him, he came over and went to Q‑School. But would he have come over and gone to Q‑School if he knew that it would necessitate a year in the Minor Leagues before he could get out and play the PGA TOUR. He won the Japanese Money List last year, that's millions of dollars last year and won his National Championship in Korea. Is he going to forego all that to come over here and play the Nationwide Tour? He is a big part of golf, now; and a big part of this tournament, now. You're talking about eliminating an opportunity for players that don't even have a vote on the issue. I understand what the PGA TOUR is trying to do, acquiesce to the demands of a sponsor but personally I think it's short‑sighted.
Short-sighted? Actually, that's one of the nicer things said about this "concept."
Geoff
Reader Comments (47)
We all get the part about some meaningful rollback and enforcement for elite-level players who are now obsoleting the historical championship courses. Now, what about the recreational part of the game? The people who, I gather, the bifurcators will think might quite the game if they had to use rolled-back equipment? So we let them play with -- what? Anything, I suppose. Why not let equipment manufacturers sell them anything the market will bear? Who cares, when you begin to go down that road of irrelevancy?
And then, what you are left with is ONE set of rules, seriously enforced by the USGA and the Tour, for the real game of golf, and then everything else with no serious method or motivation to enforce whatever pointless rules might exist.
I don't know whether to protest any notion of 'bifurcation' (I expect that the USGA continues to oppose bifurcation, along with the unholy ally, Acushnet) or to simply say that, "bifurcation really just means one set of rules for real golf, and everybody else just playing by no rules at all, which they could do right now as recreational players if they wanted to..."
They mostly addressed Pro Golf issues, nothing pertaining to low class scrubbs like us. Chamblee, like mentioned by Geoff, was most outspoken about two sets of rules, really equipment. Miller was basically a mute because of Faldo who kept mentioning his major wins when ever he could slip it in.
I agree with the q-school take, but honestly I don't think they'll lose the Fall Series in the process. It's always been different than the meat of the schedule but it has its place. If they continue to play fall events on quality courses and have decent money they might not get Tiger and Phil but plenty of top players will still show up. Finchem said "the system isn't broke", and if that's the case then leave it alone. If major corporations like McGladry are willing to sponsor fall events then doesn't that prove the events have value to them?
As far as Bifurcation goes, who gives a rip? How many people play by every rule in the book every round of their life anyway? And how often do you get to play golf with perfectly manicured fairways and marshalls every 50 yards. Go out there have fun and hit it again, if you get to a 5 handicap you will appreciate every rule, until then the rules are BS to the 18 handicap anyway.
Now lets talk about the hair. He is pretty much a dbag. His pontificating isnt even accurate half the time and this coming from a guy who was the definition of average. He played in 370 events and made 180 cuts for a career of just over $4 million. Someone should shut that guy up.
The pros do NOT play with the same equipment that you do. They may play the same BRAND but you can't walk into Golfsmith and buy what they use. The pros eqipment is fine tuned for them- from shafts to weight to grips plus their swing speed is significantly greater than most recreational golfers.
Bifurcation for equipment/balls and no anchoring putters should be established. I hope to see the day.
That's his job, isn't it? He's doing what they want him to do, give his opinion and whether you agree with him or not he is not a phony, he does have an opinion and is pretty informed on most topics. I like him.
The majors tours should do a better job on course set up: more rough, graduated rough, tougher greenside conditions.
But bifurcation folks would reverse the situation. My equipment would be "better" than the pros, or designed to help my game to a greater extent than that allowed for the top players. So what do I give my (theoretical) son who at 14 can play single handicap golf ? Get him to start using the "restricted" equipment that the pros use ? (and under a bifurcated regime, as @Chuck said so well, who knows how far those paths will diverge over time ?) Do you see a situation like in baseball where a large extent of the good high school or college players are exposed as frauds as soon as they have to switch over to wood bats needed in pro baseball? What about events that include both pros and amateurs, such as the US Open ? Presumably the "pro" rules would be applicable in these events, but not in the US Am ? So you have all of these problems, and what are the benefits ? Ams might get a few strokes a round better ? More equipment sales ? Tour scoring goes up? I think everyone in favor of bifurcation is thinking that once you separate rec golfers, than the governing bodies would feel free to impose more and more drastic restrictions and limitations on the Pros. But my point is go ahead and do what is needed for the pros (and btw, 0 chance that balls/clubs would be "rolled back", best case is capping of current status quo and future growth), and the ams will fall in line just as they have in the past.
For me, I hate the pro's using the belly putter. Controlling the yips is definitely a part of the game players shouldn't be allowed to circumvent.
Well, I might be able to agree in part. Tour players do have some unusual privileges; they can spend all day on a lauch monitor in Carlsbad, being brought custom-built drivers by the dozen, to try to find the one perfect match for them. They really do opitmize launch conditions, to an extent that few if any amateurs, even great amateurs, do. And yes that produces distance. But the reason that they can do that at all is because they have such good repeating swings to begin with.
As for getting stuff that amateurs can't get; mostly, it is just fitting. There are of course tour-issued models of clubs, and custom putters, that command exorbitant prices on the gray market, but only because the supply is limited and demand by high-end amateurs exists. Usually, they are simply designs that are proper for better players, with qualities that would be harmful for crummy struggling recreational players. (Open face angles on drivers and woods; higher centers of gravity; elaborately tested, calibrated and bent Camerons thanks to work in the Carlsbad studio or the Titleist Tour Van, etc.)
"Bifurcation for equipment/balls and no anchoring putters should be established. I hope to see the day."
Last one first; putting: Yep, I agree that nobody should be able to putt with a long putter anchored to their chest or belly. Now, try to write that rule. It's hard. I hope that they can do it.
Bifurcation: I presume that everyone who agrees with "bifurcation" starts out with the proposition that Tour pros and eilite players need an equipment rollback, right? Otherwise, why bifurcate? Okay. So then that leaves "the rest of golf; recreational play." And I ask, if you set up that kind of world, who is really going to car, about ANY equipment rules for mere recreational play? Why bother? Who is going to check? Who the heck is going to care?
Roll back balls, but leave golf's One Set of Rules alone. If you want to play with super-high-performing-non-conforming equipment, just do it. Nobody is stopping you.
Bifurcation is admission that nobody will roll back the ball. it will make things worse not better. Instead of a tenuous relationship to the pros, the better amateur's game will have no relationship to them. What does a good player do? play pro stuff in a US Am qualifier, then switch to a different bag of stuff for the club champ?
Either roll back the ball or dont--but these replacement measure like bifurcation are disasters.
Bifurcation means golf will end up like bowling.
Anchoring makes the game easier for the average joe--arent we trying to attract new players? all you guys with the 12 hole course, 8 inch cup, etc. should love it. so what if it looks bad and/or tour players win ar 24 under instead of 22 under.
I just thought that if the USGA makes a set of rules for its top-level national competitions, that a lot of better golfers and perhaps some clubs, might voluntarily adopt the elite-level standards. I'm not an elite level player, but I think I might adopt the top-level restrictions, just to be able to continue to play 'the same game.'
For those people, I say, don't play by the Rules if you don't want to.
For the USGA, I say, you guys know what you should be doing.
Personally, I'm for no bifurcation of the rules. Most amateurs don't play by the strict rules, anyway, and it's doubtful they would with a second "amateur" set.
I'm neutral on the long putter and Q school as long as the rules remain same for all.
Professional golfers inspire others to play, to strive to get better, and provide exciting entertainment. Why would anyone want to watch the pros do something my club champion can do as good or better? Currently shots around the green can be spun much more by top amateurs. This isn't a big deal in and of itself, but if balls are rolled back 10% for pros and not amateurs, grooves are different, putting styles different and all favor the amateur, professional Golf would be stunted and so would the entire game. Let's think bigger picture and not just our own egos.
Bifurcation is a good thing
Who's with me?
FYI...stole the idea from Drew Roger's blog.
It will be interesting to see how the Euro Tour responds to the rise of the Asian Tour's money, importance and talent level. We'll know the transition is complete when the Asian Tour adds some stops in Hawaii and the west coast of N. America.
Are you saying the PGA Tour is making moves to block the Asian Invasion? How dare you!
(you are right, of course)
I see what you are saying and agree with some of it, but look also what happened on the LPGA in terms of US events and the sponsors that they tried to strong arm a few years back. They walked. Lets hope that doesn't happen. The Tour has already lost some of the old stops that were loyal. Do we really want just the highest bidder events? I like the Harbour Town, Greensboro, Pebble, and Hartford events where loyal fans come back year after year. That's what the Tour was built on. History means something, it's part of what makes golf great.
Many of the posters fail to realize that the game of golf is actually played outside of the U.S. This problem has already occurred with the British ball vs the larger U.S ball. The larger ball was used for the Open, the elite players played the larger ball and this eventually filtered down to all levels of play. Finally the RA adopted the larger ball as the legal ball.
If that's the case, what is the point of bifurcating? Indeed, as I have suggested, if recreational golfers largely don't care about thorough adherence to the Rules of Golf, why create a set of high-tech equipment Rules for them at all? Why not just roll back current equipment standards now, for real golfers? Make those standards part of the Rules (and/or the Appendices and Decisions), and if casual recreational players are really that honked about not being able to crush their ProV's with big-headed drivers 300 yards, or 250, or 210, just let them play with whatever they want, under whatever Rules they care to dream up on their own. That leaves "Golf," and everything else. Not "Two Kinds of Golf."