Twenty Years Later

Thomas Bonk looked at the anniversary of Jack Nicklaus' Masters win and offered this perspective on changes in the game.

And Nicklaus' Masters victory in 1986 clearly represents the end of an era in more ways than money.

The two most important pieces of equipment in golf were going to take on a drastic new look.

It wasn't until 1991 that Callaway Golf revolutionized drivers with the large-headed Big Bertha, shoving into the back of the closet the flat-faced, unforgiving block of persimmon wood on a steel shaft.

And it was in 2003 when Titleist brought out its Pro V1 ball. A three-piece ball instead of a wound ball, and with a thinner cover, the Pro V1 was immediately hailed for its greater control, better feel, improved trajectory and longer flight.

The combination of driver and ball has altered golf's landscape, perhaps forever.

In 1986, Nicklaus averaged 266.4 yards off the tee. A 22-year-old Davis Love III led the driving statistics, averaging 285.7 yards and the PGA Tour average drive was 261.6 yards. The 190th and last-ranked player in driving distance this year is Brad Faxon at 260.7 yards. Love is ranked 27th in driving, averaging 299.3 yards, but 23 players are averaging more than 300 yards.

Woods, by the way, is eighth, with a 304.8-yard average. Bubba Watson is hitting it farther than anyone, averaging 320.9 yards, and the average PGA Tour pro drives the ball 289 yards — about 27 yards farther than the average pro in 1986. And Watson's lead over what Love averaged in 1986 is more than 38 yards.

Don't think these kind of numbers have been overlooked. Just check the numbers at Augusta National. In 1986 when Nicklaus won, it was listed on the scorecard he kept at 6,905 yards. In a couple of weeks, they're going to play a course that's 7,445 yards and has been lengthened for the third time in seven years.

A Plan For The Future

Jim Achenbach writes his latest online column a bit like Nuke LaLouche pitches (all over the place). But you have to love that he is writing about the issues, trying trying to generate discussion and attempting to consider all sides of the equation.

He first suggests that a competition ball would be the best way to go:

The answer is for the USGA to create a "condition of competition" that allows tournament officials to impose the use of a shorter ball. This ball would be used in PGA Tour events and any other tournament, professional or amateur, that elects to go with this detuned ball.

Sure, this notion is controversial. Regardless, it provides a workable answer to the distance dilemma.

Golf fans in the big world out there don't give a toot whether J.B. Holmes uses the exact same ball as you and I, but everyday golfers drool over the possibility of hitting some of the same irons into par 4s as Holmes does.

The one-ball rule was established as a condition of competition, and the same could be done with the velocity of the golf ball.

And he seems to be joining the growing chorus that feels the difficulty of relating to the pro game may be stifling the growth of everyday golf.

If we are serious rather than hypocritical, we will do whatever is reasonable to foster the growth of the game. I believe that equalizing the playing field between tour pros and the rest of us would make the game more compelling.

Fine. Now, here's where things start to get interesting...

Because golf is so difficult, we must be conscious of the regulations that are imposed on golfers and their equipment. If I were the czar of golf, I would change the maximum number of clubs from 14 to 15. This would help revitalize the industry and would allow golfers to take advantage of new clubs such as hybrids.

Don't expect a 15-club limit any time soon, but the point remains: We should be encouraging the expansion of all segments of the game, including golf equipment manufacturers.

Really?  Or maybe some pushed for such a rapid product turnover cycle that manufacturers have used up their best stuff?  Or dare I say, maybe they've created weary consumers who might feel like they are being taken advantage of?

My fear is that additional golf equipment regulations will stifle creativity within the golf industry. Too many rules could result in an environment in which golf clubs and balls are sold largely through smoke and mirrors rather than performance.

Lord knows that line has never been crossed!

If design creativity is limited, golf companies are smart enough to compensate with creative marketing. This can lead to greater confusion among golfers and less emphasis on the true sophistication of golf equipment.

I remember mentioning to a very well known equipment maker that he must really enjoy the creative side of designing clubs. His reply? "Nope, it's all about marketing." 

If golf is not healthy and does not grow, there is a trickle-down effect that touches many aspects of the game. We would be wise to consider the many golf jobs created among golf manufacturers, golf professionals, golf shops, golf course maintenance staffs, clubhouse employees and all golf-related businesses.

True, and just think how many more tips a member could hand out if he did not buy that 15th club!

Or...eh, forget it. Here's where things seem to unravel:

Golf is an outdoor sporting phenomenon that is played by all ages. It should not be diminished, thwarted or truncated. It should remain vital, dynamic and spirited.

All things considered, this is why USGA officials are so worried. We (and they) are standing at Ground Zero. We must choose the path to the future.

The final exam for Golf 101 has just one multiple-choice question:

(A) Do we really want golf to grow and prosper? Or . . .

(B) Do we want it to reflect and resemble the game it was 50 years ago?

Think hard, because in all likelihood there is no "all of the above" answer.

The conclusion seems to be: the game as it is now is much better off than 50 years ago, BUT...we need to fix the mess we are in now.

Ohio Golf Assn: Trying A Competition Ball

Thanks to reader George for the heads on Jim Achenbach reporting in the new Golfweek that the Ohio Golf Association will provide a designated golf ball to competitors in this summer’s Ohio Champions Tournament.

A new event on the OGA schedule, "it will be an event unlike any other."

That's for sure. From the online entry form: 

The Board of Trustees of the Ohio Golf Association has decided to take a stand against the eroding playability of our old courses due to the length of the modern golf ball. The Champions Tournament will be unique in the fact that the committee will identify a golf ball for use by all contestants.

The ball to be used will be a modern ball, with specifications as similar as possible to most popular balls, the only exception will be a lower compression. The ball to be used will be on the USGA’s approved ball list.

Like a tour event, the Champions Tournament will have several stations where ball flight, distance and swing speeds will be measured and documented for the entire field. The purpose is to extrapolate information that will prove useful in the ultimate goal of identifying a tournament golf ball.

If you wish to be part of this exciting experiment, contact the OGA at: tournaments@ohiogolf.org and you may be included in what will be the most revolutionary change in tournament golf since Softspikes.

According to OGA director Jim Popa, the 36-hole event will be played August 22-23 at Windy Knoll Golf Club in Springfield, Ohio, where the Ohio State Mid-Am was played last year. The field will be comprised of Ohio club champions, city champions and local golf association champions, many of whom played the previous year's state amateur.

Alan Fadel, a one-time PGA Tour player and top amateur golfer is chairman of the OGA ball committee and says this is the culmination of several years of research and contemplation by the association.

Though no ball has been selected, both Fadel and Popa revealed that the group is close to selecting one that likely will not significantly favor clubhead speeds over 105 m.p.h. as today's balls tend to do. It will be a 3-piece ball, with a compression of around 70 with a soft cover.

Fadel says they will likely share the name of the ball maker at some point, but both confirmed that the ball to be used is on the USGA's Conforming Ball List.

In phone calls today, both Fadel and Popa emphasized that the impetus behind this project is to create a starting point for dialogue and to amass some information, but ultimately, to find a way to restore relevancy to many of Ohio's classic courses and also to deal with pace of play issues brought on by today's driving distances.

"Here in Ohio we have 800 golf courses and 25-30 just fantastic, world class older courses," said Popa. "And we can't use them anymore."

And he added, "it's time to get this game back where its supposed to be, a game of skill."

The OGA has a history of bold moves that may not exactly be popular in Far Hills (perhaps explaining why so few Ohio residents have served on the Executive Committee). 

The OGA was the first golf association in the country to endorse the use of SoftSpikes.

Could they be influencing another potentially significant trend?

Let's hope so.

NGF Says Rounds Played Flat In '05

The GCSAA reoprts the details...

The National Golf Foundation says same-facility rounds played in the U.S. were down 8.1 percent in December 2005 compared to December 2004.

As a result, total rounds for 2005 finished the year at -0.1 percent, or flat, compared to 2004. Private clubs were down one percent for the year while public courses broke into positive territory.

December data was reported by 1,573 golf facility operators across the country. (Same-facility rounds means that only facilities reporting rounds for both December 2005 and December 2004 are included in results.)

All Feel, No Thoughts

Lorne Rubenstein looks at the emergence of the "thoughtless" player.

Exclusive, With A Twist

Harry Hurt in the New York Times looks at exclusive Emerald Dunes, where they try to maintain a sense of humor. Frank Chirkinian is Hurt's host.

He also examines the concept of super high-end clubs.

Oh, and isn't Sebonac spelled, well the way I just spelled it instead of the New York Times version?

Nugent: Tiger Could Play In the NFL

If you are a Golfweek subscriber, you may have noticed that publisher Jim Nugent has written several columns on the distance issue. Perhaps none of his writers will take his anti-USGA/anti-common sense regulation stance, or times are tough and his staff is spread thin. 

Either way, he has made the unusual move of stepping away from his role as Publisher to write a series of op-ed pieces. And the resulting work would be funny if it weren't actually damaging the credibility of his otherwise fine publication. He writes in an online exclusive:

There is little debate that the ball travels farther today on Tour than it did when Nicklaus and Palmer ruled the fairways. But myriad factors have caused this to occur.

Jack and Arnie were never mistaken for NFL linebackers; Tiger Woods and some of his contemporaries could start for a lot of pro football teams, such is their athletic prowess.

What, as place-kickers? On semi-pro teams?

Yes, this is definitely the better athletes argument gone farther awry then ever before! 

The rest of the piece goes on to talk about how there is no evidence that the game has suffered, the golfers will never stand for it, etc., etc., etc...

"Just The Way It's Going Now"

J.B. Holmes in this USA Today story on the shift to power/flogging:

"It's better to have a wedge in the rough than a 7-iron in the middle of the fairway. That's just the way it's going now."

And this, which is hard to imagine since he seemed to have wedge into every par-4 at Scottsdale:

"I'm not overswinging or anything. That's just my normal swing to try to get it in the fairway. There's probably been times I've hit the driver better. When that happens, I can go low because I have so many wedges in my hand."

Lerner On Recent Events

Rich Lerner offers a bit of this and that looking at recent events in golf.

Ballmark Study

Not the sexiest topic, but there are some interesting findings with photos in this Kansas State study on ballmarks.

I wonder if most golfers do it incorrectly because they see how PGA Tour pros fix ballmarks? 

USGA and Bowling

Steve Donahue in the Auburn Something-Or-Other writes about the USBC's lack of technology regulation in bowling. At times his comments echo the way some feel about the USGA:

The System of Bowling was defined in 1991 as the four components that had a direct affect on scoring. Those four components were: balls, pins, lane dressings, and lane surfaces.

Most of the specifications, parameters, and standards that were approved in 1991 for those four components then were based on what was available on the market at the time (especially for balls) and had been tested and approved for sanctioned competition in the “climate controlled” Testing and Research Center.

We were told each component of the System of Bowling would be reviewed periodically to insure that the integrity and the game's credibility is upheld so that a bowler's ability was the factor in scoring and not advancements in technology.

It reminds me of the “Wizard of Oz” when Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man are skipping down the yellow-brick road before they meet up with the Cowardly Lion and chanting, “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my,” because they are afraid of the dark woods they are traveling through and what unknowns await.

Who is the USBC afraid of offending when evaluating and establishing specifications for the components in the System of Bowling?

The USBC can evaluate pins until the cows come home, but if they are not willing to set relevant specifications and parameters that will address the scoreability factor of pins instead of just issuing unbelievable statements that pins of today score the same as they did back in the 1960s, then it will just be an exercise in futility.

Hey, at least they USGA doesn't do that! Donahue then writes (apparently not aware of the USGA's recent complacency...):

Is the USBC afraid if they initiate more restrictive standards for pins, balls, lane dressings, and lane surfaces, that manufacturers will protest and get reversals on balls that were rejected in the past?

The USGA sets the standards for golf balls and equipment and they aren't afraid to rule that certain balls and clubs are illegal?

Why is the USBC so gun-shy?

Save Musselburgh Links

My latest Golfobserver.com column is posted.

If you are interested in the efforts to save the world's oldest continually played course, here's their "get involved" page.

And here's the official club site.

Sullivan On Torrey Pines

Tim Sullivan looks at the "perpetual" battle for Torrey Pines and what's at stake.

Funny PGA Show Seminars

The love letters are rolling in over my latest Golfdom column.

Elling on Thomas Study

Steve Elling talks to Frank Thomas about his recent study and also offers a sidebar of Thomas's ways to grow the game. Plenty of great ideas and a wonderful message. 

But it's hard to understand how he can lament the commercialization of the sport while also suggesting that the answer to increased distance is in restricting course setup or lowering the 14-club limit, not through sound rulesmaking.
 
"We've completely lost touch with why we play the game," Thomas said.

Other highlights from Elling's story:

The survey revealed nothing that will shock the cropped socks off most golfers but bolstered every theoretical notion about the drain of players from the game. Most golfers play from the wrong tees, vastly overestimate how far they can hit the ball and spend five hours enduring their masochism. Then they go home and put the clubs away for a month.

Thomas' fundamental fix will cause golf developers and course owners to recoil. Simply put, he wants to build or modify existing courses to more capably -- if not forcibly -- suit the everyman, not the .55 percent of the population that are scratch golfers.

He mentioned to designer Jack Nicklaus at the Father/Son Challenge last month that he'd like to see more courses built at a maximum of 6,500 yards in length, not the 7,500-yard monsters carved for tour-quality players. That way, John Q. Publinks would have more fun and play from more reasonable tees, likely at a lower cost.

It's insanely logical, to coin a phrase.

"He laughed and said, 'Frank, if I built a 6,200-yard course, I wouldn't have any more clients,' " Thomas said.

And...

As it stands, new courses have turned into a veritable arms race, with designers and builders often trying to out-glitz the next guy. The average player needs the opportunity to roll the ball onto the green and should not be asked to execute a 5-iron to an elevated green over a yawning bunker complex into a stiff headwind.

"We've got to turn this corner because commercialism has taken a severe toll on the game," he said.

The results of Thomas' survey are posted at franklygolf.com, with honest suggestions and his analysis of current trends set to be unveiled over the coming months.

"The object is to get people to enjoy the game more," he said. "The work we're doing, we hope to accomplish that."

He's just getting warmed up. Given his old pedigree as the USGA's equipment gatekeeper -- no legal balls or clubs reached the market without his department's say-so -- he's been mulling the hot-button technology issues of the day, too. You think his course-design ideas sound like heresy?

"I am going to propose that tour players compete with only 10 clubs," he said.