Tom Kite In The Forecaddie, Debut of The List

Courtesy of reader Stan, who kindly typed this from the current Golfweek (since I'm still waiting on an issue with a March dateline to reach the apparently hard-to-reach home of the homeless):

Hall of Famer Tom Kite never won a Masters, but he had a splendid record there, racking up 11 top-6 finishes, including three seconds. He knows a thing or two about what it takes to excel at Augusta National. When the Man Out Front asked Kite whether a medium-length hitter could contend routinely as he did given the course changes, the topic stirred some passion.

"I can understand making the golf course stand up to technology," Kite said. "Unfortunately they're responding to what's happening with just a top few players. From what I've heard has been done, I don't know if Arnold (Palmer) could've won there. (He won there four times) He made such good recovery shots, but if you hit a 3-iron, you're not going to hit the green. It takes that ability away."

Palmer and Jack Nicklaus got Kite's attention when they expressed concern over the latest National changes. Kite says he understands why courses have to be lengthened. And he gets fired up talking about it.

"If the manufacturers continue to run the game, I think the game is in for a long, tough road," he said. "The rule-making body (USGA) is not making rules for the game. The manufacturers are, and their No. 1 goal is to sell product. The game has changed so dramatically in the last six, eight years. What's happened is a joke. It's mind-boggling, compared to how much change there was over the last 100 years. Everything is based on speed. It's not based on ball-striking. If you want a good game, you can go buy it."

And with these comments, I guess it's time to debut a still-very-much-under-construction page on this site, called simply "The List."

The List features comments and links from just a few noted names in the golf world who have expressed concern about the distance issue, and their suggested remedies.

I have yet to go back into my archives of stories to post pre-2005 statements, but for now, The List should give you an idea where just some of golf's bigger names stand on the distance issue. Naturally, I welcome reader submissions to help make the list more definitive.

Funk: "they've lost control of the game. I'll swear to that."

Reuters ran with a condensced version of the Fred Funk's comments at the Players. But if you have the time, it's worth reading exactly what he said:

Q. We've seen so much of a tug o'war going on in the game about the power game and bombs away versus skill and precision. Do you feel like it's evolved to a point where power is going to be a requisite skill?

FRED FUNK: Yeah, I feel bad right now. My son loves the game of golf. He's a little guy. He's obviously not going to be physically very big. Not that little guys don't hit the ball a long way, but most little guys don't hit the ball a long way. There's always the exception.

I don't feel with where the game has gone that he will ever have a chance to play on the PGA Tour because he doesn't hit the ball far enough. The kids coming up now are hitting the ball miles. With today's equipment, you just have to it's so forgiving, the driver, I don't think it's the driver so much that's allowing you to hit it a long way; it's the more golf swing givability of the driver that allows you to swing at it. If you're blessed with that swing speed, the ball takes off for you and doesn't come down. Guys are flying it 330, 340 yards right now, which is a joke. It's made designing golf courses a nightmare. It's changed the whole philosophy of the game.

I met with [Arnold] Palmer's group a couple weeks ago, and talking to them about how they design a golf course that's fair for a guy that can hit it 330 and a guy that hits it 270 and where they have to place their corners and place the bunkers and everything else. You can't make it fair.

I really believe, and I know I'm one of the short guys barking with the guys hitting it a long way, so it doesn't get much attention; he's just jealous that he doesn't hit it that far. I truly believe if you're blessed with that kind of ability that you get the benefit of the golf ball, you don't need as much talent as the old players did because you can hit it so far. Just bomb it over all the trouble and you have a wedge or 9 iron into the green, and you're going to hit a lot of greens. I don't care how deep the rough is. And they're strong already, they're going to get it on the green out of the rough, or somewhere around it. I just don't see the skill level, other than just clubhead speed being a big factor in the future.

Q. Some people argue it would be a good thing to have bigger, better athletes, maybe the next wave you'll see a Tour full of 6'4", 240-pounders.

FRED FUNK: That's naturally going to happen because for one, the game of golf has become a great game to play as a kid. Now it's looked upon as a sport; I blame Tiger Woods for it because he's made the game cool. It's a cool game to play as a kid.

The kids are seeing the money we're playing for, they're seeing the personalities we have out here, especially with well, when Tiger came out and was No. 1, but right now our rookie class with Camilo [Villegas] and J. B. Holmes and Bubba [Watson] and numerous others, but those three guys are remarkable guys, unbelievable talent. They hit the ball miles, and they see that, and how can a kid that has a lot of athletic ability and he's fortunate enough to get introduced to the game of golf and doesn't pursue it? He ends up with a linebacker's body and he's playing golf. It's going to happen.

And why it's going to happen it is because it's a cool sport and we're going to have more and more kids playing it at a young age and they're going to develop into some big kids and they're going to be really powerful players. The ball already goes a long way, so the sky is the limit for how far the ball may go in the future with the future golfer.

But it's sad because I think they've lost control of the game. I'll swear to that. I mean, I'll argue that until nobody can prove me different. I'll argue that with every USGA guy that tests every equipment and everything else. They can throw the ShotLink stats out, they can throw everything at me and they cannot change my mind on that. I'm just adamant about the way the game has gone really since 2002, since this last generation of golf ball.

All they really have to do, they don't have to do anything, bring one golf ball back that's talked about or bring the golf ball back, just go back to the golf ball we had before this last change, and it would narrow down that gap between the long and the short.

I don't mind being the shortest guy. I never minded being one of the shortest guys on Tour and competing with a guy that could on the stats he was 295, 300, but when you have guys at 320, 330, 335, I mean, those guys that are averaging that can actually hit it 350; that's a long way. You can't beat that on a lot of golf courses now, and the design guys have no idea what to do.

So they do one thing, they jack the tees back and they don't change the greens. They say, okay, we've got to jack the tees back to protect the golf course from the long guys. You just took all the short guys completely out of it, so now all the long guys are up at the top, unless you have a great putting week, chipping week. I'll get in trouble for that, but that's all right.

Q. I hate to stop you. You skipped the Zurich Classic [in New Orleans] last year, and I understand you're going back this year. How much did the impact of [Hurricane] Katrina have on your decision?

Hey, at least he was an admitted Rally Killer. 

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.

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.

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?