Fifth Major Watch, Vol. 4

Even Ponte Vedra's very own Doug Ferguson, himself guilty of his share of fifth major stories, sounds like he's had enough of the fith major talk, even as he admits that it'll only get worse with next year's move to May.

Some of the great lines...

What keeps The Players Championship from being a major is the very organization that longs for it to be one.

The majors are run by four groups — Augusta National, the USGA, the Royal & Ancient and the PGA of America. Each run one tournament a year with a full field of golf's best players. The Players Championship, on the other hand, is among 41 events run by the PGA Tour. Ultimately, it's a PGA Tour event in a prom dress.

"They can dress it up as much as they want, but it's a regular event with a big purse," Toms said when asked to compare this with the majors. "It's a great event. It's the best one we have."

And the fact this "fifth major" discussion has become a rite of spring speaks to the quality. No other tournament gets consideration as a fifth major.

Still, the more people talk about it, the more it seems like the PGA Tour is forcing the issue.

"If you have to sell it as a major, then it's not a major," Kevin Sutherland said. "It's still a great, great tournament."

Sluman is responsible for the defining statement on the status of The Players Championship as a major when he said three years ago, "When you go Denny's and order the Grand Slam breakfast, they don't give you five things, do they? They give you four."

A Blueprint For...?

Steve Elling talks to Arnold Palmer about possible changes to Bay Hill in response to modern day driving distances, something that first came up in his Sunday NBC interview.

Also on Palmer's might-do list is an overhaul of the sixth hole, a par-5 that curls like a semicircle around a large lake. After watching a couple of players blow 300-yard drives across the pond and hit short-iron approaches into the 558-yard hole, he wants to move the green back a few yards. "I think he'll mess that hole up if he does," Retief Goosen said. "I don't think he should mess with 6 -- it's a great hole as it is. It's all about excitement and going for that green [in two] and you'd see more guys laying up."

And this...

His two-year experiment with longer rough seems to have been a mixed bag. By forcing long hitters to play from the fairway, he placed a bigger value on shotmaking. But he also widened the number of potential winners.

Sunday, Palmer wasn't necessarily buying the argument that he had opened the door for pack of middle-tier players at the expense of the big boys like Woods, Vijay Singh and Ernie Els -- all long hitters with lengthy pedigrees at the course. Nor did he necessarily agree that he had retreated to a setup that could produce more winners such as Paul Goydos and Andrew Magee, journeymen who each claimed their lone and biggest tour titles, respectively, at Bay Hill.

If Palmer reins in the bashers, on balance, he likely will have to accept a few middle-tier players as winners.

"You are saying that, I'm not saying that," Palmer said when the notion was posed. "I can't answer that. I don't know. I honestly thought that Tiger would do well [he finished 20th], that this would be a good week for him."

Make the 17th Harder?

John Hawkins' latest blog entry is a bit head scratcher. He says the 17th at TPC Sawgrass isn't hard enough because it's a "stock pitching wedge" and that: "it’s probably too easy at least one round each year, sometimes two. Changing the hole without a compromise of its character would raise blood pressures even more, which is precisely what the hole was meant to do."

Help me here. I can't think of another sport where people want to see it made tougher, even at the expense of entertainment. Football? Hockey? Baseball?

When those sports have been perceived as off-kilter, less interesting or compromised by changes in equipment, they went in search of ways to make the sport better and more interesting.

Hawkins brings up good points in the story about altering the angles of attack to add interest, but I'm not sure if they are for the reasons that say, Bobby Jones would like to have seen variety on a day-to-day basis (to better test the player). They seem to be ideas designed to raise scoring averages.

Since equipment has made it easier for the top players, many expect courses to keep up or inflict torture because the players have it easier. I guess I just will never understand the admiration for trainwreck golf that has overtaken the game. Especially when it would be a lot easier to change the ball.

Sawgrass and Rough

With stories mentioning the restoration of "shot values" (whatever they are) to the TPC Sawgrass when the "layer of Gore Tex" is installed this summer, I could not help but wonder if the changes will mean the Tour will take down the US Open style rough. (See the recommended questions for Commissioner Finchem.)

Last year, Tom Kite made a strong case for the rough stripping the course of its character and even difficulty in Ron Whitten's Golf World cover story:

"It was probably as strategic a golf course as maybe we've ever seen," he says. "It reminded me a lot of St. Andrews in that there were so many options and ways to play it. It was designed to play firm and fast, and you knew you were going to have to play some creative shots. But now it's like the U.S. Open, with lots of deep rough, trees totally out of play. Nobody hits it into the trees anymore. Nobody ever misses a green by more than two or three yards anymore, because it doesn't roll anywhere, it just hits that wall of rough."

The problem is that they overseed the course in winter, says Paul Azinger. "Whenever you overseed in Florida, you have to water it to keep it alive, and that makes everything softer and easier," says Azinger. "I'm not suggesting that it's easy. I love the course, but it's not what it was, not what Pete Dye intended it to be. It's just not that hard anymore."

Why do I have the funny feeling the rough will not go? 

Top 100 Teachers Poll

In the March 20th Sports Illustrated, the "Top 100 Teachers Poll" looks like this:

The Ohio Golf Association will run the Champions Tournament (Aug 21-23), in which all the players must use the same low-compression ball.

Good idea........41%
Bad idea..........59%

Now, considering how many of the Top 100 teachers are likely aligned with manufacturers, I was actually surprised as many as 41% said it was a good idea.

With the poll was this quote from Jim Suttie, a teacher at Cog Hill: 

"Ridiculous! One ball doesn't fit everybody's swing, so it'll take individualism out of the game."  

Besides the fact that the event is totally optional and players know what they are getting into when they enter, consider what Suttie is saying: not every ball fits everybody's swing.

Which is true. We've seen players swinging over 115 mph get an enormous turbo boost from today's ball-driver combination, as fitted on a launch monitor.

It would seem that equipment is actually taking individualism out of the game by favoring certain players, and that the Ohio Golf Association is actually trying to level the playing field again. No? 

Distance v. Accuracy

Thanks to reader Pete the Luddite for these graphs from the PGA TOUR's 2005 statistics on money leaders, driving accuracy, driving distance, and ball striking. He writes: 

Distance v. Accuracy (click to enlarge) The graphs show, not surprisingly, that there is a strong link between distance and accuracy.  The long hitters rank very low in accuracy and the opposite holds true for the accurate drivers - they're short off the tee. 

The best examples are the two extremes, Tiger Woods (Distance -2nd, Accuracy - 188st) and Fred Funk (Distance - 197th, Accuracy - 2nd).  When you graph up the data for the Top 25 Money Leaders for 2005 (I had to pick a subset), you see that only 3 players in the Top 25 for money rank in the Top 100 for both distance and accuracy.

Graphing distance vs. ball striking shows that the long hitters who win the money also know how to use their wedges. 
Distance v. Ball Striking (click to enlarge)

 

Graphing accuracy vs. ball striking shows that the short hitters who win the money also have good iron games.

 

Yes, the overall picture is that Grip It and Rip It is a fact - accuracy doesn't matter if you can use your wedges. 

 

Accuracy v. Ball StrikingBut I don't think the war is lost yet.  10 of the Top 25 Money Leaders for the year were in the bottom 100 for distance, but are still up there with the bombers.

Questions For The Commish

PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem is convening the scribblers Wednesday for his annual state of the The Players Championship news conference. Knowing a few of the attendees are regular readers and assuming they make it to the press center by 9 am, I thought I'd offer a few questions for consideration.

And feel free to join in with your questions in the comments section.

• The emphasis on fast and firm conditions being emphasized in the TPC Sawgrass "restoration" sounds great, however, the course is not being lengthened. That seems odd considering that the PGA Tour driving distance average has increased 30 yards since the course opened? 
  
  
• Are you not adding length to the course in anticipation of a possible ball distance rollback?

• Players like Davis Love and Tom Kite have pointed out that U.S. Open-like rough that stops errant shots from reaching trouble should be eliminated as part of the "restoration?" Will the fast and firm conditions that we'll see starting next May allow the rough to be reduced or eliminated?

• The winning score has been cited in comparing fast and firm years versus the events where conditions were softer. Is the winning score important, and if so, why?

• Fields are deeper, players are more skilled and course conditions finer, so wouldn't it be logical that  players should be allowed to shoot lower scores?

• Greg Norman. Great Man, or The Greatest? (With apologies to Stephen Colbert.)
  

FedEx Cup Point Averages

MacDuff has provided us with the highest point averagers in his mythical FedEx Cup points race. One x indicates four cuts made, two xx indicates only three cuts made. The table makes no account for cuts missed.

T. Woods     1921.09    x
Toms            1751.56   
Donald          1621.87   
Gf. Ogilvy        1564.58   
Sabbatini        1555.95   
Triplett            1525    xx
Mickelson        1489.06   
A.Scott            1458.33    xx
Singh            1438.83   
Weir            1431.87   
Glover            1407.73   
Pernice        1404.16   
Furyk            1390.97   
Olazabal        1362.5    x
Harrington        1350    xx
Oberholser        1347.5   
Jerry Kelly        1331.25    x
Garcia            1284.37    x
C.Campbell        1271.87   
Estes            1258.33    xx
J.Byrd            1250    xx
DiMarco        1246.09    x
Lehman        1222.91   
Appleby        1205.55   
Goosen        1195.83    xx
Rose             1193.33   
JB Holmes        1189.16   
F. Jacobson        1170.83    xx
JJ Henry        1162.5    xx
Pampling        1158.5   
Senden        1156.25    x
Love III        1152.5   
M. Wilson        1147.5    x
Westwood        1109.37    x

Fed Ex Cup Points Corrected

I reposted the March 13 list from MacDuff, and have since corrected it below. Sorry for the confusion!

Fifth Major Watch, Vol. 3

I wonder if in making the push to declare The Players the greatest golf tournament on the planet (and therefore, a major), anyone in Ponte Vedra realizes that the near desperation only lessens the chance of it becoming a major? Or that the Grand Slam can only ever have four events to be, well, a Slam.

Well, maybe Dave Shedloski at PGATour.com understands. Amazingly, he got this line by those guys with the little red pens who sit in some back room at Ponte Vedra headquarters:

Whether the PLAYERS is deigned a major or not is immaterial. It plays like one.

MacDuff's Post Bay Hill Fed Ex Cup Points- Corrected

Reader MacDuff has kindly computed the post-Bay Hill points standings for a 2006 FedEx Cup. This week I'm including the players outside the top 70 so you can see who would not be in the "playoffs" (again, using the top 70 number most often cited). The recent reports of taking as many as 125 for the final playoff series, while absurd, makes sense when you look at this list (note some of the names outside the top 70).

1    Sabbatini    10891.66        7
2    Toms    10509.37        6
3    C.Campbell    10175        8
4    Singh    10071.87        7
5    Glover    9854.16        7
6    Gf. Ogilvy    9387.5        6
7    Mickelson    8934.37        6
8    Petersson    8695.83        8
9    Pernice    8425        6
10    Furyk    8345.83        6
11    Verplank    8187.5        6
12    Donald    8109.37        5
13    T.Woods    7684.37        4
14    Chopra    7424.5        8
15    D.Wilson    7400        7
16    Lehman    7337.5        6
17    Appleby    7233.33        6
18    Mayfair    7191.66        7
19    Weir    7159.37        5
20    Parnevik    6817.5        7
21    Oberholser    6737.5        5
22    Barlow    6601        7
23    Van Pelt    6527.5        7
24    Franco    6237.5        6
25    Villegas    6200        6
26    Palmer    6166.66        6
27    Rollins    6137.5        6
28    Rose    5966.66        5
29    JB Holmes    5945.83        5
30    T.Clark    5892.5        6
31    J.Ogilvie    5845        6
32    Pampling    5792.5        5
33    Love III    5762.5        5
34    Gay    5662.5        7
35    Bjornstad    5655        6
36    G. Owen    5487.5        5
37    Olazabal    5450        4
38    Jobe    5392.5        5
39    Z.Johnson    5337.5        5
40    Jerry Kelly    5325        4
41    Warren    5295.83        5
42    Imada    5212.5        6
43    N.Green    5162.5        5
44    Garcia    5137.5        4
45    Calc    5125        6
46    Langer    5079.16        5
47    Bub Watson    5075        5
48    Choi    5062.5        5
49    Purdy    5037.5        5
50    Cink    5021.33        5
51    Funk    5000        6
52    DiMarco    4984.37        4
53    Bertsch    4900        6
54    Leonard    4895.83        5
55    Watney    4737.5        6
56    Bohn    4720.83        5
57    Senden    4625        4
58    Matteson    4600        6
59    M.Wilson    4590        4
60    Triplett    4575        3
61    Bryant    4500        4
62    Westwood    4437.5        4
63    Pat Perez    4437.5        6
64    Gore    4387.5        4
65    Olin Browne    4387.5        5
66    A.Scott    4375        3
67    J.Smith    4350        4
68    Atwal    4312.5        4
69    Allenby    4262.5        4
70    Baird    4200        5
71    Couples    4125        5
72    Harrington    4050        3
73    Frazar    4012.5        5
T74    Cook    4000        4
T74    Ames    4000        4
T76    Veazey    3962.5        4
T76    Kenny Perry    3962.5        4
78    Branshaw    3875        4
79    Curtis    3875        5
80    Hoffman    3852.5        4
81    Vn Taylor    3825        4
82    Howell III    3818.5        7
83    Estes    3775        3
84    Fischer    3775        6
85    J.Byrd    3750        3
86    Slocum    3725        6
87    Sluman    3725        7
88    Els    3662.5        4
89    Herron    3657.5        4
90    Immelman    3650        4
91    Goosen    3587.5        3
92    Kent Jones    3537.5        4
93    F.Jacobson    3512.5        3
94    Micheel    3500        4
95    JJ Henry    3487.5        3
96    Crane    3482.5        3
T97    S.Jones    3475        4
T97    Cabrera    3475        4
99    Hart    3362.5        3
100    Stankowski    3265.5        5
101    Beem    3256.25        4
102    Waldorf    3200        4
103    D. Howell    3175        2
104    Dickerson    3137.5        6
105    Gove    3125        3
106    Azinger    3112.5        4
107    Lonard    3100        4
108    Maggert    3006        5
109    S. Maruyama    3000        5
T110    Sean O'Hair    2912.5        4
T110    Ridings    2912.5        4
112    Br.Davis    2900        5
113    Garrigus    2850        3
114    JL Lewis    2800        5
115    Huston    2762.5        3
116    B. Quigley    2750        3
117    Points    2737.5        3
118    Mahan    2662.5        5
119    Levet    2637.5        5
120    Flesch    2600        4
121    Kaye    2487.5        3
122    Lowery    2475        3
123    D.Clarke    2462.5        2
124    Gamez    2462.5        3
125    Faxon    2450        4
126    M. Cambo    2437.5        2
127    Allen    2400        4
128    Goggin    2387.75        3
T129    Petrovic    2362.5        3
T129    Pavin    2362.5        3
131    Barron    2293.75        3
132    Lickliter II    2287.5        2
133    Stricker    2225        2
T134    Geiberger    2225        3
T134    Dawson    2225        3
136    RS Johnson    2212.5        2
137    Bren Jones    2050        2
138    Sindelar    2050        4
139    Baddeley    2043.5        4
140    Kevin Na    2037.5        2

Pebble's Plans

Michael Hiltzik writes about Pebble Beach development plans in his LA Times "Golden State" column.

How big a deal is this? The California Coastal Commission's public hearing on the plan, held in Monterey on March 9, lasted 12 hours. That reflected mostly local interest, but there's much more at stake. "The forest is a statewide coastal resource," says Mark Massara, an attorney for the Sierra Club. And the way the pressure for development gets balanced with the need to halt incursions into the forest by the Coastal Commission, which has the ultimate administrative jurisdiction, will say a lot about California's environmental future.

One obvious question is why Pebble Beach needs another golf course. Eastwood, Ueberroth, Palmer and their partners bought Pebble Beach Co. from a Japanese corporation for $820 million, cash, in 1999. No one denies that they're entitled to a fair return, but room rates at the company's two major resorts start at $535 a night and top out at $2,275. A day on the links will cost you as much as $450. (All rates are as of April 1.) So it doesn't seem as though the typical Pebble Beach client would object to paying a few extra bucks to make Messrs. Eastwood, Ueberroth and Palmer whole.

Another issue is whether the partners are being truly candid about their intentions. Some of the community's 4,500 residents may favor the new plan because Pebble Beach has sold it as less drastic than what it's entitled to build anyway, and as its last development request ever. "What's really great is that Pebble Beach is talking about it as a final buildout," says Gerald Verhasselt, a longtime resident and an officer of the Del Monte Forest Property Owners Assn., which supports the project.

The company claims that it now has the right to throw up at least 850 new homes within the forest, and possibly more than 1,000. Given that its new plan asks for only 62 homes and resort suites (along with a few units of "employee" housing), it feels justified in bragging that it's cutting back its development ambitions for the good of the forest.

"We're trying to do what's environmentally right," says Alan Williams, head of the development company that designed the project for Pebble Beach.

But the commission staff notes that the plan removes limits on new units at the two luxury lodges, which otherwise are topped out. And it contends that the company's right to build 850 homes is an illusion. Although county zoning standards might theoretically allow construction on such a scale, in the Del Monte Forest, any construction is subject to severe environmental restrictions, and the company doesn't have a prayer of obtaining permits for even a fraction of those units. The staff says that if the Coastal Commission wants to be a stickler, it could limit all residential construction in the forest to about 40 new homes — or even no new homes.

"Once something is identified as environmentally sensitive habitat, you just aren't allowed to develop it," Charles Lester, the commission's deputy director, told me. That classification, he adds, may apply to virtually the entire 600-acre tract covered by the proposal, which is habitat for the endangered native Monterey pine, a rare orchid and other endangered species. The commission arguably could forbid almost any construction.

Restoring An Old Tom Original

Thanks to reader Noonan for this story about the 9-holer at Askernish that will be restored to its original 18-hole configuration, as designed by Old Tom Morris.

SF Chronicle On Golf: The Green Blues

Thanks to reader Scott for this Susan Fornoff story on the state of the golf business in Northern California. A few highlights, or lowlights:

Much easier to find are stories such as the one in the Feb. 18 editions of The Chronicle, which reported that San Francisco city golf courses, including the newly renovated and universally praised Harding Park, operated more than $500,000 in the hole in the 2004-05 fiscal year. In Napa, a pretty, vineyard-lined 27-hole complex called Chardonnay went into bankruptcy and emerged under new ownership.

Same story in Antioch, where Roddy Ranch, a player-friendly and media-acclaimed golf course, couldn't sustain itself without homes on the property and went into bankruptcy, emerging in the hands of Black Mountain Development of Pleasanton and Pacific Coast Capital Partners of Sacramento with plans to eventually build 700 houses.

Ditto in the mountains of Plumas County, where a well-marketed and challenging golf course, aptly named the Dragon at Gold Mountain, landed in bankruptcy after the lots sold and the course and clubhouse couldn't make a go of it. Yet just up the road, a new course opened last summer, with developers Lowe Enterprises ga-ga over the possibilities of Grizzly Ranch, where private golf memberships are going for $50,000 and home sites start at $150,000.

Mike Mohler, the project manager, said the company prefers communities with plenty of amenities. "Would we have built a golf course without real estate? Probably not."

Probably most certainly not. The game that experienced a boom in popularity with the coming of Tiger Woods and the strong economy in the late 1990s is busting in the 21st century. Nationally, rounds declined by 3 percent in 2002 and 1.5 percent in 2003, bounced up by 0.7 percent in 2004 and dropped 0.1 percent in 2005, according to the National Golf Foundation.

And...

"What I'm seeing is that everybody's running very aggressive deals," said Hiddenbrooke director of golf Matt Ochs, who brought golfers out in February for golf and lunch at $50. "We need to stop building golf courses and we need to start growing golfers."

Even golfers agree there are two things wrong with the game: It's expensive and time-consuming to learn and play. Eighteen holes take a minimum of four hours; add the drive, the warm-up and the wind-down, and there goes the day. Green fees range from $23 to walk 18 at Castro Valley's Willow Park on a weekday to $180.20 with cart on a weekend at the seaside Half Moon Bay Golf Links at the Ritz Carlton. In the Bay Area, weekend golf costs more than $60 at all but the most budget-friendly municipal courses.

"The new course in Pleasanton has a $60 weekend green fee; ours is $95," said Truebridge of the Bridges. "If you're a senior or are on a budget, where are you going to go play? We're getting 43,000 to 45,000 rounds a year. I'd like that figure to be 50,000 to 55,000, yet I'd like to get the green fees over $110."

Add to fees the cost of lessons and equipment -- and the luxury of having the time the game takes to play -- and it's no wonder that homeowners are perfectly comfortable having a couple hundred golfers stroll by the backyard every day. It's not as if the visitors are going to jump the fence to take the patio furniture.

"Golf obviously adds value to real estate," Krah said. "People like living on a golf course and are willing to pay a premium to do that."

What about the cost to the developers? "Golf courses are a million dollars a hole, that's the round number," he calculated. "Directly, you get premiums back -- you can charge somebody an extra $50,000 to live on the golf course instead of having to stare at the neighbors."

A million dollars a hole? I forget...that copper irrigation piping...

So real estate sales can safely cover the golf course building costs. Now players have to cover the annual maintenance and staffing fees. And because the rule of thumb seems to be that residents will account for no more than 10 percent of the annual rounds, 90 percent of the players have to come from somewhere else.

The golf course's reputation with the media and players influences that, which is why the Tahoe Mountain Club is managing to fill Old Greenwood in Truckee even at $170 per round. East West Partners, developer of 99 home sites and 174 resort homes on the property, hired golf legend Jack Nicklaus to design the course on a gorgeous piece of land, guaranteeing great publicity and playability.

NBC announcer Johnny Miller put his signature on the Bridges, which had a dry creek bed on the property that couldn't be filled and thus has a reputation for being tough, the kind of place where players lose a lot of golf balls.

Fifth Major Watch, Vol. 2

We'll go easy on Ron Sirak's fifth major declaration since the Carolyn Bivens-Golf Digest credential form battle is forcing him to avoid LPGA Tour coverage.

Still, we must have our fun...thanks to reader Marty for the heads up.

For at least a decade, the question that has refused to go away concerns whether The Players Championship is the fifth major.

And I bet we're reading articles about the debate in another ten years!

That debate will gain even more momentum next year when the tournament moves to May and it is contested on a rebuilt Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass. The new date and the new playing characteristics for the course will focus even more attention on the Players, and will intensify the discussion as to its status.

Perhaps most importantly, the new spot on the schedule will semi-formalize the Players' position as the fifth major.

Yes, key word: semi-formalize.

Enjoy this year's Players Championship, and smile when it is over knowing that next year it will be even better.

Or smile because it'll be 14 months before we resume the annual fifth major debate!

No More Booz Allen

Not exactly shocking news, but it does seem unusual that the Tour would move an event knowing that it would likely lose a loyal, albeit outspoken, sponsor.

PGA Tour Driving Distance Watch, Week 11

The PGA Tour driving distance average dropped from 288.956 to 288.5 in spite of the Bay Hill rough harvest.

There were 2 drives at 350 or longer, bringing the season total to 830 (there were 2059 in 2005).

As for the percentage of drives over 300 stat, the PGA Tour average dropped slightly to 25.3%, down from 27% after the Honda.

Life In The Fast Lane Not What It Seems

Now posted is my February Golfdom column on green speeds, their impact on scoring and comments about putting made in a recent Nick Seitz story.

What's With Korean Americans and Golf?

That's the question L.A. Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez delves into in the wake of a golf controversy in South Korean politics and in the era of Michelle Wie.

Was Palmer Kidding Around?

Did anyone catch the Jimmy Roberts interview where a grinning Arnold Palmer talked about changing two of Bay Hill's par-5s to 4s and moving the sixth green based on Bubba Watson's play?

I thought he was joking, but the NBC crew seemed to think he was serious.

It would be somewhat ironic that he criticizes Hootie Johnson for so radically altering Augusta in response to the ball, while doing the same at Bay Hill.

Update on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 07:12 AM by Geoff

Steve Elling reports that Palmer was "brainstorming" when he mentioned the ideas pointed out above. And Elling reports that Tiger gave a big thumbs up to the idea of reducing par at Bay Hill.

I say take it down to par-68, then you will get rid of even more red numbers and all will be right with the world!