When you come to think of it that is the secret of most of the great holes all over the world. They all have some kind of a twist. C.B. MACDONALD
Catching up on this week's reading and noticed the very different takes on Vijay Singh from two of the most respected writers.
Tim Rosaforte signs himself up as chair of the Vijay Mutual Admiration Society, while Lorne Rubenstein says this nonsense about not talking to the press is getting old.
The USA Today's Jerry Potter interviews Tim Finchem about the state of the Tour and the game. It's pretty dull, except this bit on technology.
Q: A question now about technology. It's a big issue. I know you guys have done a lot of research on that through ShotLink. There are people saying they should roll back the golf ball, make other changes. Do you have any information now that will give you a better idea about how you should react to this?
A: I think we're not ready to pull the trigger on that decision just yet. The USGA is experimenting with some new golf balls that actually do that, or are intended to do that, to curb distance a little bit. We'll see where they go with that work.
Now, if I'm not mistaken, the USGA scoffed at the accuracy of Frank Hannigan's 2004 "Miracle Ball" exclusive. The USGA/R&A have said they were collecting balls for study, yet Dick Rugge has said that the USGA does not believe the ball should be rolled back. And the USGA has said that they nor the R&A have received rolled back balls from manufacturers for study.
Yet the commissioner says they are experimenting? Encouraging if true. Continue...
The other changes that have been made to revise the overall distance standard, and put a limit on what happens with the configuration of the face of the golf club, and things of that nature we think have had a good effect. I do think that we need to continue to look at distance. We're meeting with the other elements of the industry — the USGA, the R&A, Augusta National, the PGA — on a regular basis. And we recognize that regardless of what you do with limits on equipment, the players continue to get bigger and stronger. ... And even if you don't do anything at all with equipment to enhance it further, which I don't think will happen, that athleticism that's coming into the sport is going to continue to create a situation that these golf courses are challenged in ways that they haven't been in the past. It forces us to set them up in different ways, which in some cases may not be advantageous. So it's something we've got to look carefully at.
Not sure what you all think, but Finchem was much more clear two years ago:
"There is some point -- nobody knows where it is -- when the amateur player feels divorced and really doesn't appreciate the game at this level, just because it's so different that it doesn't become particularly relevant," Finchem told the Palm Beach Post. "The second thing is, if everybody is driving every par 4, it's not particularly interesting to watch.
"We are anxious, because we are continuing to see some distance enhancements in a short period of time. Unless something happens, we may have to move toward bifurcating the equipment specs for amateurs and professionals. In that case, we would be more involved."
From PGATour.com:
"These Guys Are Good," the longest running and one of the most recognizable tag lines in professional sports marketing, gets a fresh look through a new round of advertising from the PGA TOUR’s longtime agency, GSD&M of Austin, Texas.
It's amazing how long that campaign has lasted considering it was a replacement for "Anything's Possible," the slogan that outlived its purpose when the Tour took Casey Martin to court (and proved not quite everything was possible).
"THE PROFESSOR" campaign will include as many as 10 different TV brand and tune-in ads along with print, radio, internet and retail.
Brand and tune-in ads? Eh, I don't want to know.
The new ads put a spin on the different dimensions of competition in sports. Most sports are largely man vs. man. In golf, however, players not only compete against each other, they face equal and sometimes greater challenges of man vs. nature and man vs. himself. To highlight this idea, the campaign features a mock professor describing fictitious clinical scenarios of various life obstacles that are also realities that both TOUR players and recreational golfers can relate to, such as man's inner demons and the forces of nature.
Hey, is Max Behr sitting in on those rivetting brainstorming sessions?
“TOUR players are confronted with a new set of obstacles with every shot, with a fine line between success and failure. That creates a great deal of intrigue, drama and excitement among golf and sports fans,” said Ric Clarson, senior vice president of Brand Marketing for the PGA TOUR. “There's a story in every shot, and every shot counts.”
In other words, this is why you should tune into the Thursday telecast from Memphis. You might see a shot you will then get to see over and over again on Sportscenter.
In one of the ads, "Pressure Seeker," the professor describes a person who derives satisfaction from extreme pressure situations. While most people succumb to pressure, TOUR players are the best in the world at coping with it. The professor suggests these type of individuals, even when dealing with extreme situations, can often appear "cool as a cucumber."
"Dendrophobia" has the professor discussing the fear of trees, rare among the general population but very common in even the best golfers. The professor suggests "…those afflicted with dendrophobia seek open grassy spaces.”
...
In the Golf World story on the new Tour TV deal, Stu Schneider writes:
The source said the tour would likely reduce its subsidy of purses from 62 percent to "somewhere in the 50s," putting pressure on tournament directors to get that revenue from other areas.
Now if 38% of the television money over the last four years stayed in Ponte Vedra, and it was valued at "almost" a billion dollars, would that mean the PGA Tour takes somewhere between $75-95 million a year for executive salaries, marketing and overhead?
My postman must not have found Golf World's look at putting very interesting because I actually received the current issue a week ago. Well, he missed out on some good reads, because Nick Seitz takes an in-depth look at different putting philosophies, while Bill Fields uses ShotLink to illustrate why putting still matters on the PGA Tour.
Mike Vitti at PGATour.com delivers the back nine of the Tour's toughest 18. Not exactly a course you'd want to play. And not because it's so hard. The holes played so tough because other than No. 18 at TPC Sawgrass, it's a rather boring group.
Yes it's a slow week. Here's part 1, the back nine is posted tomorrow.
I'm sure George Thomas would be thrilled that his "restored" 8th at Riviera made the list. Imagine how tough No. 8 would be if it presented actual options that caused the players to think!
Peter Kostis explains why he believes there are so few burgeoning American stars compared to the rest of the world.
He doesn't mention the sense of entitlement guiding most American youth. Nor does he bring up the lack of diversity in playing conditions they face, particularly firm ground and thought-provoking designs. Nor does he mention the overall lack of imagination that American golf presents, thus failing to provide our kids with the kind of experience that European and Australian golfers are exposed to.
Mostly he blames the state of American college golf programs. (Actually, after reading about coaches endorsing a brand of rangefinder, maybe he's on to something.) He also believes the Tour school structure is an issue too.
Collegiate golfers who do turn pro are often met with the harsh reality of Q-school, where changes are needed as well. Exemptions past certain stages of Q-school should be abolished. Everyone should go through three stages, thus evening the playing field for the younger players (only 10 of 32 Tour cards earned this year went to players who survived all three stages).
Lorne Rubenstein gets to the essence of what we love about some tournaments, and why all of these no-cut, rich-get-richer affairs aren't doing the Tour much good.
Real tour golf should be intelligently designed, then. Only then are golfers forced to be strong and to see if they have what it takes to survive.
The game has always been about getting it done without the security blanket of a guaranteed cheque. Little by little, that's changing, sure. Anybody who wins a tour card will make at least a couple of hundred thousand dollars from equipment contracts and other endorsements. But that disappears if the player doesn't keep the card.
My latest Golfobserver.com column. An email to the Commissioner about PGA Tour Fantasy (the game, not his dream of a $1 billion TV contract).
Once a great event because it was played on unusual looking designs and featuring the biggest names in the game, how does the Skins Game hope to muster excitement these days?
Wondering if Annika will outdrive Fred Funk.
That's what a gimpy Tiger Woods and others are curious to see, as these stories explain here and here.
And if you were curious where they are playing--shocking you can't remember, I know--the Skins returns one more thrilling time around that lovely Indio sod farm known as Trilogy. Here's my 2004 Skins Game obituary in case you missed it and wanted a copy for your scrapbook.
2,059. That's how many PGA Tour drives finished over 350 yards in 2005 according to the Tour's stat gurus.
You may recall that last week the longest drive stat was looked at here, and it was pointed out that ShotLink was now tallying all long drives hit this year (unlike in past years where only drives hit on the pair of measuring holes counted toward the longest drive stat).
However, the 2005 list ended at 978 drives of 357 yards or more. 2,059. I had 1,500 in the pool.
Architects, change those turning points! 300 is out, bring on 340!
Shoot, might as well go with 350 just in case the guys really start hitting the weights this winter.
Better late than never! My October 28 Golf World arrived today, five days after the Nov. 11 issue found its way into my mailbox. (My postman found himself captivated by Ron Sirak's account of the Wie DQ).
In the same issue, E. Michael Johnson writes about equipment sponsors who are frustrated that players are not dropping product or corporate names enough during interviews, ala NASCAR.
That's not a surprise, but this part was:
Even the tour has recognized that its constituents could use help, hiring a public speaking authority, The Speaking Specialists, to address players earlier this year.
"We told them to remember they're always on, and to take advantage of every opportunity to talk up their sponsors," said Sue Castorino, president of The Speaking Specialists. "Sometimes they take [the sponsors] for granted."
Nice that the Tour is looking out for the player sponsors, isn't it?
The PGA Tour regulates the size and number of logos a player can have on his clothing, yet has consultants encouraging players to plug their new driver like some NASCAR dude thanking Goodyear for FedExing those new high grip tires that would look great on your Chevy?
Pro golfers and their manufacturer ties are taken more seriously by golf fans because the players do NOT shamelessly plug stuff at every opportunity.
Not a big fan here of the PGA Tour's "longest drive" stat since Kapalua, Colorado and cart paths skew the numbers. Still, I found these numbers interesting in light of the USGA/R&A's 2002 "any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable" benchmark:
1992 PGA Tour Longest Drive Stat
0 drives over 400 yards
3 at 350 yards or higher
1993
0 drives over 400 yards
18 over 350 yards
1994
0 drives over 400 yards
4 over 350 yards
1995
0 drives over 400 yards
22 over 350 yards
1996
0 drives over 400 yards
13 over 350 yards
Bored yet? Hang in there.
1997
0 drives over 400 yards
28 over 350 yards
1998
5 drives over 400 yards
46 over 350 yards
1999
1 drives over 400 yards
112 over 350 yards
2000
0 drives over 400 yards
42 over 350 yards
2001
1 over 400 yards
79 over 350 yards
2002
1 over 400 yards
80 over 350 yards
2003
1 over 400 yards
118 over 350 yards
2004
32 over 400 yards
210 over 350 yards
2005
19 over 400 yards
978 over 350 (but list stops at 357!)
Okay, before you go what the $%*& (like I did), consider this: in 2005, the Tour apparently started using ShotLink for the longest drive stat. So instead of taking the long drives from the two measuring holes, 2005 encompasses all of the drives hit. Still, you are probably talking about a significant number of drives over 350 yards hit in 2005. (I've asked for the number from the Tour, as well as the possibility of finding out the tally from the two measuring holes only.)
For another comparison that shows just how much those work out programs and brick hard fairways are compensating for the lousy clubs and balls, the Nationwide numbers still just worked off of two measuring holes in 2005:
2002
3 drives over 400 yards
125 over 350 yards2003
9 drives over 400 yards
199 over 350 yards
2004
4 drives over 400 yards
138 over 350 yards2005
4 drives over 400 yards
303 over 350 yards
Nearly double the number of tee shots over 350 yards since 2002 when the line was drawn?
Something's going on. Either we're talking about optimization of launch conditions, better workout programs, widespread use of performance enhancing drugs, really firm fairways, or, did I mention optimization launch conditions?
Geoff Shackelford is a Senior Writer for Golfweek magazine, a weekly contributor to Golf Channel's Morning
Copyright © 2022, Geoff Shackelford. All rights reserved.
