Norman v. Uihlein

Greg Norman argues for bifurcation, Wally Uihlein fights for his bottom line in Guardian point-counterpoint arguments that have appeared elsewhere. Norman:

The distance that pros hit the ball now is affecting the long-term vitality of the game. Not only are classic courses being made obsolete, strategy and skill are being taken out of golf. And lengthening and toughening courses is adding to the expense and time required for the public to play the game.

Uihlein:

Yet the professional game continues to grow and prosper because of the abilities of the players, and because the rules in place more than adequately control technological influence.

Hale Hale

We've got another anti-golf ball technology, pro-communist sympathizer in the game as John Huggan outs Hale Irwin who was playing the Scottish Open at Loch Lomond.

Take the dogleg right 7th hole. After Irwin slid his drive perfectly round the corner, just as the course designer intended - the Englishman simply blasted his tee-shot over the high tree on the right and into the distant fairway. While impressive, it was also a depressing sight, one that was not lost on Irwin either.

"There's a limit to what an older player can do, or what their minds will let them do," he explains. "When you nurture your game by manipulating the ball around the course - fading and drawing shots, hitting the ball high and low - you can't suddenly switch to hitting the same shot over and over.

"It's a whole different mentality and one I have tried to avoid. It just isn't my game and it's so hard to with today's equipment anyway.

"That shot I hit on the first hole is a perfect example. Twenty years ago that ball would have been in the loch way left of the green. It would have curved that much. But now what feels like a snap-hook only turns a few yards in the air."

Still, he is not above sticking up for his own generation and the way they used to play. Like so many, Irwin is not a fan of the direction modern technology has taken golf.

"I've been impressed with the play I have seen here this week," he conceded. "Every time I go play with the 'kids' the calibre of play never ceases to impress me. But they aren't any better than the great players of the past; it is just that they get so much benefit from modern equipment. Today's clubs and balls allow a very different type of play.

"Take today, Paul and I weren't really playing the same game. Like so many, he hits it high and launches it out there. They don't have to worry too much about the wind and just go for it. That's not depressing as much as it is just different. But I do feel that the game is suffering just a bit.

"The players of the past - the Nicklauses and the Watsons - manoeuvred the ball. They hit it high and they hit it low, shaping their shots to the conditions. But today's player just hits the one shot. If there's a debate between a 7-iron or an 8-iron they choose the 9-iron! They just go ahead and kill it. I don't say that disrespectfully, but it is not the game I know or the game I play." 

Golf On Steroids

Eric Rozenman in the Chicago Tribune says golf has its own steroid issue to deal with.

Chicago-area golf fans can witness routine drives at this weekend's Western Open at Cog Hill that would have been impossible barely a decade ago. That's because golf's on steroids. Not the players, the equipment.

We'll let this next reference to Augusta National Country Club slide because it's leading to a slick analogy.

Monster drives have changed the game so much that long par fours that used to call for a mid-iron second shot to the green now take a mere pitch. Four years ago, William "Hootie" Johnson, then chairman of Augusta National Country Club, which hosts the Masters, mused out loud about requiring a low-octane ball. Honorary club members Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer applauded, but Johnson backed off, lengthening the course instead.

That, of course, is the opposite of the Indianapolis 500 model. As engine technology advanced, race officials imposed power restrictions rather than change the event to the "Indy 600."

And...

The royal and ancient game of golf is undergoing the same extreme makeover suffered by auto racing when dragsters displaced sports cars: bigger, louder, but less sporting.

And...

Golf needs to end the distortion caused by ever more juiced equipment. The game must re-emphasize skill over technology. Today's "live" balls are live enough--and metal woods, like metal bats, belong in the minor leagues.

Tarde: Wishes Distance Regulation Had Happened

In his August, 2006 editor's column, Golf Digest editor Jerry Tarde lists his "Top 5 Wished They'd Happened" moments in golf. Number 5:

The USGA holding the line on distance in 1976, 1982, 1984, 1987, 1995, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2006. 

This, combined with his June Top 5 that included 4 ways to deal with distance (only one suggestion to do nothing), requires that I add Tarde to The List. I'm sure this will make his month.

Commish For The Day

Gary Van Sickle puts himself in the (frightening) shoes of Tim Finchem, Carolyn Bivens and David Fay, and tells us the things he'd do if he were running the game.

Pucker Up and Shill

That line about the smaller the ball, the better the sports writing? (Wind, Plimpton, Jenkins...one of 'em said it first.)

Well GolfDigest.com's "Bomb and Gouge" blog is going to do everything in its power to prove that it's not true.

This latest puckering up to a certain advertiser based in the lone state where Bruce and Steven can get married:

Gouge:  It is hard for me to say this, but if a professional golfer can average 207 yards off the tee and make the cut at the most prestigious tournament of the year, then maybe we don't need to worry so much about a rollback of any kind. 207? It is true. Rosie Jones did that this week. In fact, only the teenage wondergirl hit it farther than 280 on some of her measured drives. Hardly anyone else even came close to that. OK, so Rosie was barely in the tournament and retired from competitive golf after putting out on the 18th on Sunday. But still the average drive at the U.S. Women's Open was just 228.7, and that's hardly a threat to any golf course.

That's right, they are gauging distance by using a tournament that had standing water in its bunkers and a tournament where they couldn't even let spectators on the course on practice round Monday. Either they are intentionally misreading readers, or they didn't actually watch the event. Either way, not good. Oh but it gets better.

You want to know what's the real problem? People who complain that the golf ball is going too far may be short-sighted. The problem is that at the elite level (men) it's not the ball, it's the golf course. If men are driving it 28 percent farther than women, then why (at least in the case of the U.S. Open) are the men playing a championship course that is only about 10 percent longer? Shouldn't the U.S. Open and all significant men's championships be played at courses that are about 8,000 yards long, or at least 7,500 yards long? Well, I guess they're not because there's no room to make Winged Foot, Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, Southern Hills and Merion that long. That infatuation with the past is what Emerson called a foolish consistency. 

Whoa, we're quoting Emerson now! Deep stuff. (Note to really cool classic courses out there that are sick of spending money updating their courses so people like Bomb and Gouge can play the latest equipment they get for free: it's Mike Stachura and E. Michael Johnson, feel free to charge them double.)

BOMB: But finally, FINALLY you might be coming to your senses. The ball is not the problem. The courses are not the problem. Drivers are not the problem. Know why? They’re ain’t no stinkin’ problem! And we don’t need to go to 7,500 or 8,000 yards, either, to keep it that way.

Opponents of distance regulation have long said “grow some rough.” Worked pretty well at Winged Foot, don’t ya think?

Uh let's see. Tiger said watching the weekend was his "punishment" and according to one publication, the ratings tanked.

Worked great. 

Oh but here's the best part.

Throwing out the Match Play where they don’t keep the stats, there have been 26 events so far on the PGA Tour this year. In nine of them—more than a third—the winner has ranked 34th or higher in driving distance for the week. That’s out of about 70 players or so that make the cut. In six of those events the winner ranked 58th or higher. That’s right, 58TH—a lot closer to last than first. The winner has been in the top 10 exactly 10 times. That means sometimes distance wins and sometimes it doesn’t. And when distance is the difference-maker I’m all for it. Golf is a sport. An athletic endeavor where physical superiority should be rewarded. But unlike weight-lifting, it’s not the sole determinant of success. Tiger, Phil and Vijay may blast the cover off the ball, but I don’t think they’d be choppers if they didn’t. Holmes and John Daly and the like will wow us every so often with a week where they whack the ball a mile and hole an equally-lengthy amount of putts. But Fred Funk will win a Players and Jim Furyk a U.S. Open playing small ball.

So yes, distance only matters sometimes. That's why Bomb and Gouge continue to fight for every golfers right to buy things that let them hit the ball longer, free of USGA regulation.

If distance doesn't matter that much, then why do they so shill so hard to keep it from being regulated? 

Knowing Club Selection In Advance

Heres what Phil Mickelson had to say about his club selection on 18 at Winged Foot while meeting with da medja in Chicago:

Fortunately what I have found has helped me play well or have that type of performances these past years in the majors is that I've done the prep work beforehand and I know what club selection I'm going to hit off each tee, given weather conditions, whether it's raining, whether it's hot or not. I already know and have known for weeks in advance what clubs I'm got to hit off each tee, so it's helped me approach the tee box with confidence knowing what club I'm going to hit.

It helped me when I hit the driver on 18 at Baltusrol on the last hole and ended up making a birdie. It helped me at The Masters knowing what club and what driver I was going to hit off each tee, and it helped me at the U.S. Open. Unfortunately I didn't execute the way I wanted to.

But it has erased a lot of the doubt as to the decision-making, what club am I going to hit, what club should I hit. I already know weeks in advance, and it helps me hit those shots and visualize those shots in practice before I ever show up the week of The Open.

Now, we have debated Phil's two-driver concept at Augusta here and here and here.

But I'm wondering if his ability to select clubs in advance says something about the state of the game.

This is not a technology question, but I believe one about the state of course setup and course design.

Is there something wrong with setups and designs when a player of his magnitude (and others like him) know what they will be hitting on holes well in advance of tournament time?

Or to put it another way, is the golf more interesting and testing if the design and setup create decision-making situations that can not be made in advance?

Wind and the player's philosophy play a role in this, but isn't there something seriously wrong when some spontaneity is missing from the major championship equation?

I was both elated and troubled by Mike Davis's decision to announce the alternating of tees during the U.S. Open. Elated that he was doing it, troubled that he was giving everyone advance notice.

Don't we learn who is most skilled by finding out who can handle a club selection and playing strategy question under pressure?

Enough rambling...your thoughts? 

6200 Yards Obsolete On The LPGA Tour Now?

Sal Maiorana at the LPGA event in Rochester:

Karrie Webb may have felt like biting her tongue after completing a disappointing 2-over-par 74 in the first round of the Wegmans LPGA on Thursday.

During a pre-tournament interview, Webb was asked if Locust Hill Country Club — with its lush rough and fast greens — would be an ideal prep course for next week's U.S. Women's Open.

"I think it's perfect for driving the ball because it's really a tough challenge driving the ball," said Webb. "We're going to be facing a lot longer second shots (at Newport Country Club in the Open) into par-4s than we do here. But it's always good to touch up the wedge game and the short irons because if you are missing a few fairways at the Open, you're probably chunking it out to about that distance anyway."

Ouch.

However unintentional her backhanded swipe at Locust Hill may have been, Webb's assessment was right on. Locust Hill, set up the way it is for this tournament, is too short at 6,221 yards by today's standards, and that was definitely proven during the second round Friday.

Yes, the course has built-in defenses with its thick rough bordering firm and narrow fairways, and greens that are fast and often difficult to read. Then there's the fickle Rochester weather. Thursday it was swirling winds.

I get all that. But how do you explain this? During the first round, when the wind was whipping and many of the players said it was really tough to judge distances and select lubs, there were 35 rounds under par of 72, nearly double the first-round average of 19 over the first 29 years at Locust Hill.

Ogilvy: "golf is a better game when the ball goes shorter for us profiessionals"

Geoff Ogilvy talking to Reuters:

"I think golf is a better game when the ball goes shorter for us professionals," the 29-year-old from Melbourne said.

"I don't understand why we have to get to the point where we change the Augusta National... we had it for 70 years so why change it? Courses like that make golf more interesting."

 "We (professionals) are the top 1 per cent of golf and, at the most it's 1 per cent of that 1 per cent who really benefit. It helps the guys who didn't need the help.

"Guys who used to be able to drive 300 yards (274 metres) can now hit it 340 (310 metres). Long term it's not good for the game."

Golf as Antidote To Bonds, Enron and Abramoff!?!?!

The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger pieces together many beautiful sentences in somehow relating the no cell phone policy at Winged Foot (except for the USGA President's PDA), no cargo pants at Congressional and other "traditions" that show golf is above the sins of other sports and politics.

It's just a game. But a game that defines the conditions of its experience with words like "fairway" and "rough" may have something useful to tell the wider world in a time when tradition seems old hat.

We might agree, for instance, that a sense of personal honor, at the most basic level, appears to be an eroding tradition. Enron, Abramoff, Bonds are words that define a new, at-the-edge world of business, politics and sport. Baseball almost surely will admit into Cooperstown several users of steroids because, as any lawyer will tell you, there was no formal rule against it at the time.

Golf, unlike most everything else, is by and large scandal-free.

Oh right!

The Open at Winged Foot last week enforced, with metal detectors, a rule of nearly unimaginable harshness: no cell phones anywhere. "That is a rule which is almost universal in golf at traditional clubs," says Robert Trent Jones Jr., the golf-course architect. "You are out of touch while you are on the property so you come into touch with the game of golf, its friendships, yourself and nature."

And the inevitable technology stuff. I'm not really sure what he was going for, but I suspect it messed up the theme and that's why he brushed right over it.

Of course change comes to golf. Technology can't be capped. Course layouts adjust. Fear persists that the USGA will cave in to the promoters -- the "Taco Bell Shinnecock Open"? Winged Foot's members rolled their eyes at the 36,000-square-foot merchandise tent atop their driving range (not the one Mr. Mickelson hit).

Change in golf is similar to the Founding Fathers' view of new constitutional amendments; it is supposed to be hard, to keep the silliness out. "New ideas have to pass the test of the traditionalists," says Mr. Jones, the architect.

Uh huh.

And when change comes, what was left behind remains in memory. "I miss some of the old sounds," says Kevin O'Brien, a member at Congressional. "The sound of metal spikes on pavement or the sound that a good persimmon driver made."

Golf is a 500-year-old institution. In the U.S. it has 25 million adherents. It is vital not in spite of its traditions but because it refuses to abandon them. Tradition is its wellspring. Other institutions, under great pressure these days, might take note.

Yes, like the USGA for starters! 

An Important Victory For Golf

John Huggan says Geoff Ogilvy's win was an important victory for golf because the Australian has "the potential to be just the sort of wise, high-profile spokesman the professional game needs if it is to rescue itself from the technological black hole into which it is currently headed."

So many great quotes to pull here, so just read it. Some you've read before in other Huggan stories, but to see them all together really makes a powerful statement about Ogilvy's fresh take on things.

And after you read it, contrast it with this nonsense. 

Retro Skills Challenge

Thanks to reader Marty for this Michael Vega story from the Boston Globe on a retro skills challenge at the Concord Champions event, where a few guys played 1950s and 60s clubs.

Certainly, in the field of 79 who will tee it up Friday for the 54-hole Bank of America Championship, there are some whose careers were rejuvenated by those advancements.

``Oh, absolutely," said Baiocchi, 59, of South Africa, who will be paired with David Edwards and Mike Sullivan in the first round. ``I played a lot of European Tour golf, so I didn't play a lot of regular [PGA] Tour golf with a lot of the guys out here. But talking to the guys, they all seem to be driving the ball further now than they did in their heyday, in their prime. Again, that's because of the equipment.

``It's basically made the game a lot easier and more enjoyable to play. Now, instead of driving the thing 220 with Hoganesque-type clubs, now we can drive the thing 270 and 280, which makes a big difference even for us."

And this from Andy Bean...

After hitting a 50-yard shot into the 18th with a throwback wedge, Bean said, ``I looked at that wedge and went, `Did we really play these?' But we did play clubs like that."

No matter the size and shape of your swing, the sweet spot is now much easier to hit with perimeter-weighted irons, fairway woods, and drivers of all makes and launch angles. And that's without even addressing the matter of the golf ball, and its myriad technological advancements.

``For the average player, the give is good," said Bean, 53. ``I think it takes away from the scoring on the professional side, because it puts more technology in the game and we can take a little more advantage of technology than the average player."

Bean figured the advancements have ``let 50 percent more players compete to win.

``A lot of the guys who normally wouldn't be hitting the fairways, now they're hitting the fairways with more regularity, and they're hitting it longer, which means they're going to have shorter clubs into the greens and it's just easier for them to compete. The long players, the strong players in any sport, they're still going to be strong and the fast ones are still going to be fast.

``But you still have to have the feel, and you still have to have the touch, and you still have to have the dedication -- no matter what sport you're in -- to go out and win.

``With golf, though, the good part about it -- the big-headed drivers, fairway woods, and technology with the perimeter-weighted irons -- it allows the amateurs to score better and that's what it's all about."

With Today's Equipment...

Reader Chris correctly surmised that I do not subscribe to Tiger Woods's email newsletter, and shared this little nugget from the current edition:

And no, I won't carry two drivers. I can shape my driver both ways, so I don't need to carry two, although I can understand where Phil Mickelson is coming from. With today's equipment, the ball goes straighter and it's hard to move it from right to left...

Kostis: Where's The Cry For Wie-Proofing?

Maybe one too many weeks doing CBS infomercials telecasts has blurred his vision, because Golfonline columnist Peter Kostis (and Titleist "Golf Products Design Consultant") publishes a doozy with his latest attempt to tell traditionalists that they have it all wrong:

...Tiger Woods won the 1997 Masters and courses felt they need to become Tiger-proofed. Many facilities around the world added length and started cutting holes closer to the edges of the green. For golf traditionalists, the idea of playing par 4s with a driver and a wedge was just blasphemy, and boring as well.

Have those purists bothered to watch an LPGA Tour event lately?

Actually, not really.

Sorry, you were saying...

Proportionate to the length of the courses they play—typically between 6,300 and 6,500 yards—the women on the LPGA Tour are getting as long off the tee as the guys. Just look at this chart:

Longest Hitters on LPGA and PGA Tour by Year
1999     260.7 (Jean Bartholomew)     305.6 (John Daly)
2000     270.1 (Caroline Blaylock)     301.4 (John Daly)
2001     265.8 (Wendy Dolan)     306.7 (John Daly)
2002     269.3 (Akiko Fukushima)     306.8 (John Daly)
2003     269.7 (Annika Sorenstam)     321 (Hank Kuehne)
2004     270.2 (Sophie Gustafson)     314 (Hank Kuehne)
2005     270.3 (Brittany Lincicome)     318 (Scott Hend)
2006     288.7 (Karin Sjodin)     321 (Bubba Watson)

Now let me ask you this: Have you heard anyone say that the LPGA needs to do anything to its courses in response to players getting longer? I certainly haven’t.

How do I explain this deep, very complicated concept?
 

You see, your typical LPGA tournament course is 6800 yards from the tips and the LPGA is playing it at 6300 yards.

So let's say they need to add some length to offset the advances in agronomy and instruction, so they just go back to the 6600 yard tees, and they have another 200 to spare.

Cost? $0. Nada. Zilch.

Shocking as it may seem, people are irked when courses add length, take out trees, shift bunkers, blowing up rock and in general, spend ridiculous amounts all so that the grown men can keep shopping free of regulation.

In fact, Michelle Wie is creating a global fan base and earning millions in endorsements because she is not only young (16) and attractive, but overpowering LPGA courses exactly the way Tiger overpowered Augusta back in ’97.

Now, I think the world of Wie and tire of the "she needs to learn how to win debate." But uh, Tiger was winning in 1997 and doing it in a way that was clearly going to change the men's game, and therefore, the courses tournaments are played on. 

Is there an outcry that Sjodin is hitting it 18 yards longer than the 2005 distance leader like there was for Kuehne in 2003? I don’t think so! Are people blaming a new golf ball for the sudden 18 yard increase in distance at the top of the LPGA stats?

No, it must be the agronomy and improved diet that helped Annika pick up, oh, 50 yards.

Nope! Is anyone complaining that LPGA play has become boring? To the contrary, it is more exciting than ever!

So to conclude this dark conspiracy? Get ready to laugh...

This is yet another sign of just how sexist golf can be.

Oh, it gets better.

Seriously, there are only about 40 men in the world capable of overpowering a course. But the knee jerk reaction to these players has created a call not only for courses to be lengthened, but restrictions be placed on equipment and the golf ball.

Only 40 men in the world capable of overpowering a course? A knee jerk reaction has created a call? Uh, it's not 40 and it's not a call anymore, just ask the course owners who've spent millions and millions of dollars or the Winged Foot members who spend $500k to build a new tee on No. 12 that will be used twice next week. 

If you are going to talk about what’s good or bad for golf, please have the courtesy to remember that women play too.

This could be one of those turning point columns that awakens even fence-sitters to just how far-fetched and comical the pro-distance shilling has become.

Update on 2006-06-06 18:20 by Geoff

Speaking of knee jerk reactions, this might be a nice time to point out a Kostis's 2002 declaration that Augusta National's changes were all things wonderful, and his change of heart this year.

His actual comment during the 2002 telecast was that the pre-Hootie course was "one-dimensional" and that the addition of rough and trees had made it a stronger test. But after seeing more trees and rough this year he wrote that the course "now dictates more forcefully what shots the pros must to play" and that you don't like "those strategic qualities being taken away."

Knee-jerk or just...

Furrowing A Failure Or Success?

Despite the negative player comments and the heated debate that CBS did their best to pretend wasn't happening by actually showing player interviews (imagine a NASCAR or NFL telecast running so timidly from an interesting controversy), it seems that the bunker furrowing at Muirfield Village brought attention to the question of whether a bunker should be a hazard.

It would also seem that most everyone who didn't vote on a rake spec while serving on the Tour policy board believes bunkers are too good and that this was a great start to restoring the hazard element.

It would also seem that furrowing wasn't the perfect way to go about it,  since it appeared fairway bunkers were treated different than greenside bunkers and there was a debate about which direction to rake in, the depth, the motivation, etc...

And there are also questions about how this little experiment will influence Green Committees across the land.

Finally, the excessive rough that has overtaken the sport would seem to make the concept seem more "unfair" than it really is.

My verdict: it was delightful to see bunkers mean something again. It was even more fun hear select players who have pushed a $elfish agenda on the distance issue--the primary culprit behind all of this setup madness--whine over something that appeared in part because of deregulation.

Your verdict?