GolfDigest.com Groove Discussion, Vol. 2

More good stuff, especially about 7 minutes in when Paul Goydos starts talking about how "architects have gotten lazy" and how it takes imagination to design short holes that test all kinds of players.

Australian Masters Opening Day Telecast Thoughts

What a delight watching Kingston Heath during round one of the JB Were Australian Masters.  Tiger Woods posted a 66 in front of huge crowds and we were treated to several hours on Golf Channel here in the U.S.  Not only is the golf course so lovely to look at, but the flow of the telecast was far different than what we're used to hear in the States.

A few things about the broadcast stood out:

- Camera angles. Perhaps they were forced to have some alternatives, but a few holes featured a nice side view look at a green instead of the standard rear tower. It added variety and gave us a better sense of the architecture.

- No promos. It's amazing how much better the telecast flowed without the relentless plugs for NCIS and reality shows and...

- Made the announcing so much more enjoyable. Particularly the Ian Baker-Finch/Brett Ogle portions. Not having to read so many plugs allowed them to engage in some informative discussions about how holes had changed thanks to technology, what a great job Mike Clayton did adding the 11th hole (and why), and overall the better flow lent a relaxed, welcoming tone that made the telecast feel like we were merely listening in on a conversation among knowledgeable fans. IBF also ably explained the strategy behind some of the holes as we were treated to graphic flyovers.

- Focusing on two groups. What a joy to really study one group primarily (Badds, Appleby, Coltart) with select shots from others like Adam Scott and Matthew Goggin. This allowed us to take a tour of the course (aided by those great hole graphics) and to see a nice variety of shots, not just an onslaught of putts. Baddelay was all over the place, but his swing looks sensational and you get the sense he's making progress. Getting to see so much of his round made for more interesting viewing, even though he wasn't playing that well.

Not surprisingly, the golf course also came off beautifully. The sparse and dry roughs, the lay of the land feel of the holes and those wondrous bunkers jutting into greens with so little rough between the two: perfection!

For those who watched, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

In Praise Of Aged Bunkers

From Martin Blake's story, Tiger Woods talking about Kingston Heath:

''The bunkering is just phenomenal,'' he said. ''You never get a chance to see bunkering like this in any other place in the world.''

It's both funny and sad, but the characteristics making Kingston Heath's bunkering "phenomenal" to Tiger are precisely what most American courses try to avoid: the aged patina bordering on a look of deterioration; the irregularity of the shapes and sizes; the native plant material growing in and around the pits; the use of native sands even if they aren't bright white; the exposed dirt "lips" and finally, the lack of sand in the faces.

While the sandy soil, climate and natives lend certain characteristics to the Sandbelt look that would be tough to replicate in many places, there is still so much to learn from the look.(And thanks to the club website course tour, we have some photos to enjoy before play tees off at 7 p.m. Pacific Wednesday on The Golf Channel.)

Consider the functional side. While it's a less sexy topic, function is nonetheless a fascinating component to the Sandbelt bunker that needs to be exported ASAP!  Anyone who has played American golf wonders why the standard bunker contains inches of sand in the faces. (And usually a color not native to any region but Carmel's white sand beach).

The combination of the Sandbelt soil and a less vain golfing population unconcerned with Photoshopping every little bunker blemish, allows superintendents to keep the faces devoid of huge amounts of bunker sand. The floors are the only portion raked (with native sands) and the faces remain hardened sandy earth in a similar shade, though there are places of exposed dirt and bless them for not trying to cover those blemishes up!

While the elimination of buried lies in the face makes the bunkers seemingly less hazardous, note during the Australian Masters how the ball reacts when it lands in these firm bunkers. If the ball is coming in hot, a pinball effect is bound to send the ball anywhere, sometimes even into a nasty lie in the natives. The firmness effectively making the bunkers even more dangerous. Throw in the tight fairway mowing into the low side of most Sandbelt bunkers, and they effectively play much larger than the typical inland American bunker.

The eroded, weathered and rumpled "lips" are the other obvious stand out feature, adding deep shadowing and therefore a character-rich third dimension that only Mother Nature can shape. That naturalness makes what is an otherwise nasty hazard so lovable. Because even the best golfers in the world are not offended by what seems like a natural hazard. But clean 'em up, throw in full sand coverage, rake them meticulously, and the slightest misfortune becomes offensive.

That's the difference between a seemingly natural bunker versus the manmade and why no matter how broken down or dirty the Sandbelt bunkers may appear, they'll always be oh so lovable.

"I suggested to Tiger several months ago that now he's in the golf course design business that maybe he bring one of his guys down here to take a look"

There seems to be no shortage of talk about Tiger's appearance fee in Australia and a calculated effort to spin it as a chance for him to brush up on his design expertise, not for the $3 million he's reportedly receiving.

Mark Hayes and Michael Warner in the Herald Sun talked to Sunshine Stevie Williams and lived to write about it:

The golfing superstar was holed up inside his luxury Southbank hotel suite, but continued his pre-Masters reconnaissance mission by sending his caddie to inspect the course.

Steve Williams spent two hours recording distances on all 18 holes in a sign his boss is determined to earn his giant $3 million pay packet.

"I suggested to Tiger several months ago that now he's in the golf course design business that maybe he bring one of his guys down here to take a look," Williams revealed.

"And he's done that, because in such a small, concentrated area, you've got some of the best courses in the world. The design and the bunkering on this course is unique and very, very good.

"I'm sure he (Tiger) will be looking at it tomorrow."

Now, if he goes to see some other courses in his spare time like Crenshaw would, then we'll know he really is serious about this design stuff.

Meanwhile on the appearance fee, Peter Stone opened his story today with this anecdote:

TIGER WOODS is relentless in his pursuit of Jack Nicklaus's record 18 major victories - with just four left to equal the Golden Bear. So, with a sense of mischief, let's suggest another way he could emulate the great Nicklaus.

We'll go back to the 1975 Australian Open, the first of four opens sponsored by the late Kerry Packer at The Australian, when Nicklaus headlined the field for a modest appearance fee.

Like Woods, Nicklaus was undisputed world No.1 at the time. Nicklaus asked Packer what prizemoney was on offer that week and, when told, Nicklaus immediately added his fee to the purse, which brought total prizemoney to $35,000.

So began the Packer/Nicklaus solution to appearance money. In following years, each invited player was paid $6000 and, in 1976, total prizemoney was lifted to $200,000.

This week, the Australian Masters purse is $1.5 million and Woods is reportedly receiving a $US3m ($3.3m) appearance fee.

Would Woods do the same as Nicklaus this week? Dream on.

But most of the fretting over the amount looks like it'll prove futile, because as Steve Elling notes, the event is looking like a hit, no thanks to Greg Norman:

But hand it to the Aussies, they had not seen Woods in 11 years, and he once again proved to be the game's ultimate show pony. Officials reported selling all 100,000 tickets (capped at $44 Australian dollars per round) for the week, and presumably, the Victorian government has a chance of finishing in the black once all the hotel stays, car rentals and incidentals are tolled. By the way, the tax hit in Australia is a shade under 50 percent in this bracket, so Woods will be contributing to the Oz coffers himself, too. Ah, economics in the 21st century, huh?

And judging by Patrick Smith's cranky reaction, someone in IMG's PR department has done a fine job overprepping the media for Tiger's arrival.

The reaction it must be said was childish and so fevered that normally sensible people lost the plot. Helicopters chopped above Essendon Airport, TV cameras covered this angle, that angle. Print journalists jotted down his every move. Even moves he might have made but didn't.
When he set his left foot on the tarmac, the world's greatest golfer said: "This is one small step for Tiger, one giant leap for golf". Or apparently words to that effect. Tiger's entourage is apparently colour-coded to make it easier to control them. It was noted who went into the different-coloured cars. Even the luggage van was described to radio listeners.

Q&A With David Owen

The release of David Owen's lastest book, Green Metropolis, coincides with a powerful look at golf's sustainability in the November, 2009 Golf Digest.

GS: Your November Golf Digest feature lays out a pretty strong case for changes in the way we view golf courses and how they interact with the environment. Your bold conclusion seemed to say that no matter what we do conservation wise, shrinking the golf landscape is the top priority and to do so we must reassess the chase for distance. Do you think there's any scenario where this could happen?
 
It would take some courage from the game’s governing bodies—something they haven’t traditionally shown much of. The USGA, instead of tackling distance directly, has done things like spending millions on golf ball research. That’s like addressing climate change by creating a government department to build car engines. The easiest way to reduce golf’s environmental impact, as well as to hold down its rising cost per round, would be to reduce the amount of groomed acreage that the game requires, and the easiest way to begin doing that would be to dial back the golf ball. Doing that wouldn’t be sexy, but making unsexy decisions is what nonprofit governing bodies are for.
 
GS: Who would you like to see take the lead on this and how would you sell it to golfers that a distance rollback is the best thing for everyone involved?
 
DO: In the ideal scenario, the USGA, the R&A, the PGA Tour, the PGA of America, the European PGA Tour, the tournament committee of the Augusta National Golf Club, and anybody else with influence over the game would agree that it’s crazy for an expensive sport with shrinking participation to continue driving up its own costs. Longer clubs and balls lead to longer golf courses, which require more maintenance and consume more real estate, water, fertilizer, pesticide, and fuel, thereby driving up both maintenance budgets and greens fees, and driving away players. Manufacturers will probably scream—they have in the past—but they don’t need distance to compete. Making putters and wedges is usually more profitable than making irons, but nobody buys a putter or a wedge because it hits the ball farther. Let manufacturers compete on accuracy instead of yardage. Let them make their equipment so accurate that we can get by with smaller greens and half-width fairways, which would cost less to maintain.
 
GS: It seems as if the argument would be aided by numbers that say, if the Overall Distance Standard was dropped by X amount, X number of acres less would be needed for golf, and therefore, X amount of energy, water and money would be saved annually. How much of a rollback do you think would make a difference for existing courses?
 
DO: I have no idea what the numbers are. And, of course, making a long golf course shorter without ruining it or spending a fortune isn’t necessarily an easy thing to do. But the lousy economy is shrinking golf’s landscape right now. Between 1990 and 2008, according to the National Golf Foundation, the number of golf courses in the United States grew by almost 25 percent, from fewer than 13,000 to roughly 16,000, yet during much of that same period participation by golfers actually fell. In fact, Americans played 20 million fewer rounds in 2008 than they did in 2000—and the decline has presumably accelerated since then, as the economy has tanked. Those forces, right now, are driving marginal courses out of business, pushing us back toward where we were in 1990. The resulting contraction will be good for the survivors, because the golfers who remain won’t be spread so thin, but bankruptcy is a very blunt instrument of change. It would make more sense to try to wind golf back in a more orderly way.
 
GS: You write that the trick is to find a "sustainable balance." Do you think the economic collapse is actually making this a possible path for golf's future, or will it just be another example where the game's leaders are just saying what they think needs to be said to cover their rear ends?
 
DO: I have no idea what the game’s leaders are saying. Many, I would guess, figure that technology will save the day—that, for example, somebody will come up with a type of turf grass that doesn’t need to be watered, fertilized, or mowed, and everything will be fine. But technological breakthroughs are at least as likely to increase costs as to reduce them—and, besides, we already understand the technology of making things smaller. The problem is that low-tech solutions don’t seem very glamorous to most people. I know a married couple who are getting ready to build a new house. The wife read a book about the environment and got all excited, and suggested to her husband that they make the house green. He said, “Good idea. Let’s make it 2,000 square feet instead of 8,000,” and she said, “That’s not what I meant!”
 
GS:  You get around a lot in your work for the New Yorker and you still play a fair amount. Do you hear a lot of negative feelings directed toward golf and if so, do you think much of it comes from the game's image as a resource waster? Has animosity toward the game gotten worse recently?
 
DO: I don’t know that animosity has increased. In fact, I think golf is still enjoying the image upgrade it got from the rise Tiger Woods. But golf’s leaders should worry less about the game’s image and more about its rising cost per round.
 
GS: On another subject, in the October 12 New Yorker you profile of Nell Minow, the influential independent researcher who co-founded The Corporate Library and who believes CEO compensation is "doing more to destroy capitalism than Marx." You write about the subscription database she runs which includes SEC filings, contracts and background information, including "in one case, overlapping golf-club memberships of corporate directors."  Did you find out any more about this and what it might say for the role certain clubs play in the corporate world?
 
DO: That club was Augusta National, and the membership list was one that was made public back in the Martha Burke days. Lots of business gets done on golf courses, but I think golf-playing corporate hotshots are more likely to think about the effect that their business relationships might have on their golf club memberships than the other way around. Will serving on that board make me more likely to be invited to join Seminole?—that sort of thing.
 
GS:  Back to golf and the environment. Do you think there's ever a day when golf courses could be viewed as environment beacons, or is mere survival and basic sustainability the real goal at this point?
 
DO: Golf, like all human activities, will always exact an environmental cost. But it’s worth remembering that the first golf boom in the United States, back in the late 1800s, took place at a time when the equipment was primitive and playing conditions were extraordinarily crude—no four-piece balls, no watering systems, no fungicides, no greens mowers. Anybody who has ever played cross-country golf on a closed course in the middle of the winter knows that the game doesn’t have to be played on a 7,500-yard billiard table in order to be compelling.

My home course is a century old. It has just nine holes, and it fits on 40 acres—about half the size the USGA’s recommended minimum for a nine-hole course. To play 18 holes you play it twice, from different tees, and the whole thing, if you stretch it out to the absolute tips, measures barely 6,000 yards. Big-hitting members sometimes used to complain that it was outdated, and that we’d eventually have to either abandon it or find a way to make it a thousand yards longer, but it now seems serendipitously well-suited to the times, and to our likely environmental predicament in the years ahead. My club’s costs are low because we don’t have much acreage to maintain, and the course is short enough to allow four players on foot to play 18 holes in three hours. As a result, we’ve been able to keep our dues under control, and, although the stalled economy has hurt us, we haven’t suffered the sort of membership crisis that some other clubs in our area have. I think we represent one possible model for the future—and I’m sure there are others.