No Longer Tempting, Still Interesting

First, let's get the Faldo-Nantz question out of the way. During Sunday's telecast, they apparently asked why architects can't build holes like the 10th at Riviera anymore.

I wish Jim had asked me earlier in the week. The answer is so simple!

Most of today's architects haven't got a clue what makes No. 10 work, which makes it kind of hard to design a hole like it. Sorry boys. Your ordinary short par-4 portfolios back me up on this one.

Okay, now that we settled that, let's consider about what happened this year.  

The tiny little green was firmer and faster than ever. A positive change was made by Tom Marzolf (to offset the really lousy ones) when the bunker face in the back left was lowered, bringing the green and fringe right up to the bunker, making the right side that much more daunting.

Yet, for the first time in the governing bodies-failing-the-game-on-distance era, nearly everyone in the field believes the only play is to drive the 10th. Even Jose Maria Olazabal was doing it.  

Mickelson approaches No. 10 in the 2007 Nissan Open playoff from an odd angle (click to enlarge)I asked Phil Mickelson in his post-Sunday round session why he doesn't consider the lay-up optoin, which seemed to startle him based on the unusual pause before answering.

Q.    Can you talk about your playing strategy on 10 and why you don't lay up, what's your approach to that [hole]?

PHIL MICKELSON:  The only way to play that hole is to get past the hole. The real question why didn't I hit driver and get it for sure past the hole.  I thought with a little bit of help, 3 wood would be enough.  You can't hold that section of the green, short of the pin.  There is no way.  It's was too firm and it's angled six or seven degrees away from you, it's just not possible.

Final round ShotLink data for No. 10. Note how few layed up. (click to enlarge)The concept of laying up left and having a wedge in? Not even in the cards anymore.

And that's not just for a long hitter like Mickelson.

Consider eventual winner Charles Howell's comments:

Q.    Charles, during the ride past on the playoff on the tenth hole, Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo were talking about world ten what's the history with that whole number?

CHARLES HOWELL III:  We've had a love/hate relationship, I think it's one of the greatest par4's that we play and it was different this year, and I think you saw more guys go at that green off the tee because the green was so hard.  In the years passed here, that green has been so soft with all of the rain you can lay the ball up to the left and hit a wedge in there and hold it.  I saw a lot of great wedge shots this week land on the green and end up in the bunker.  With the greens being as firm as it was, around the green, as to why we don't have more, I don't know.  Because that one there is every bit as nerve-racking and exciting as we need.

Q.    Where are you trying to play it on 10 when you are playing?

CHARLES HOWELL III:  Anything.  Anything at this front edge of the green or just left of it and pinhigh.  So the reason that hole is so good is that the golf ball is going so far now that a driver actually gets past that and you end up chipping back this way.   So Phil hit a 3wood, I hit 3wood, we've got to hit those 3woods pretty darn good to carry that last bunker to left.  So it's really hard to get that ball pinhigh left.  Like I said with that green firm, that front right bunker is no bargain. 

So I'm not sure if this is a statement about the (lack of) confidence Tour players have from 110-75 yards, or simply a statement about the sheer ignorance of the world's greats.

I'm still not convinced that driving the green is the percentage play, when, as Steve Elkington told a few of us earlier in the week: laying up all four days, he'll never take more than 16 for the week on No. 10, and he'll probably play it 2 under.

Either way, one thing became clear.

The tempting quality of the hole that Jim Murray so beautiful described years ago has become a casualty of unharnessed distance.

This does not make it a lesser hole, just a little less interesting and a whole lot different than just a few years ago. 

“The longer we hit the ball, the better we are, and we have to get away from that."

Monty, I now apologize for ever making fun of your car washing fetish. Loved your comments from Dubai:

Speaking at GolfEx Dubai, Montgomerie himself raised a few eyebrows by insisting that suppliers make slower balls and modified clubs to boost competitiveness at professional level.

Monty believes that balls should be made with ten to fifteen per cent less velocity and wedges cut back from 60 to 56 degrees to restore the skill factor, while the perennial debate over big-hitting clubs and lengthening courses still needs to be addressed, believes the eight European Tour Order of Merit winner.

“The longer we hit the ball, the better we are, and we have to get away from that,” he said. “The Masters has lost some of its charm. I used to shoot 66 on a round but I can’t see that happening now. St Andrews has six new tees and when changes are being made there, you know we have a problem.”

Letter To The Editor

An interesting letter to the editor in Saturday's L.A. Times:

After suffering through last weekend's Pebble Beach Pro-Am, I think it's about time they put this little clambake to rest.

Years ago, when actual celebrities showed up, it was novel, and fun. Now with the B-list celebrities and six-hour rounds of hacking, it's like going to the dentist, with the pompous Nick Faldo along as commentator.

The reason I stopped playing golf was because of slow play and too many people on the course with absolutely no idea of how to play the game. Why would anybody want to watch it on TV?

D.S. ADAM
Newhall

Groove Study Done, Ball Study...

...hopefully forgotten about?

Mike Stachura reports that the USGA has issued a final report similar to their preliminary report from August, but still no mention of the ball study from 2002. Here's what Stachura says:

The final report does not include any proposal for a rule change, but it does seem to indicate a fundamental change from the USGA's position on grooves 20 years ago. At that time (during the so-called "square grooves" debate), Stuart Bloch, then chairman of the USGA's Implements and Ball Committee, actually termed any differences between U-grooves and V-grooves "inconsequential."

This next part comes after Dick Rugge is quoted as saying that the USGA has better testing procedures...

Rugge did not provide any specific timetable for a rule-change proposal or even suggest that there would be a change at all. But he did suggest that a meeting with Arnold Palmer several years ago prompted him and his staff to research the issue further.

"When Arnold Palmer came to our building and shook his finger at me and said, 'Allowing U grooves was the biggest mistake we ever made,' it did make me want to take a look at that issue."

Arnold, could you go back and shake your finger at Dick and tell him your thoughts on the golf ball going too far?

According to a USGA study of amateur players at the Walt Disney World Palm and Eagle Pines golf courses, only 13.1 percent hit the green from shots out of the rough from 100 to 200 yards. The PGA Tour average for similar shots is 49 percent. Also, because the urethane-covered ball used by tour players spins much more out of the rough than the typical ionomer-covered ball (like those with Surlyn covers) preferred by most average golfers (more than two-thirds, based on a study of recent Golf Datatech industry sales figures), average golfers don't often use the equipment that can generate the most spin.

"It's a way of addressing the problem where the problem shows up and not affecting anybody else," says Rugge.

Translation: this way we can keep harvesting rough and offering 22 yard landing areas to discourage distance for tournament play while ignoring the issue we don't really want to deal with because it would require us to admit we botched this one big time!

"The culling of courses is not viewed as a negative by NGF."

Picked this up off the GCSAA newsletter:

According to the National Golf Foundation, there was negative net growth in golf facilities in 2006 for the first time in 60 years, as the number of courses that closed (146 18-hole equivalents) was greater than the number of openings (119.5).

In releasing the data, NGF said it was not an alarming occurrence, but a confluence of events – openings returning to more normal levels and weaker facilities being culled.

In the late 1980s, the number of openings was about 100 per year. There followed a wave of increased construction in the 1990s that peaked in 2000 with nearly 400 openings. Since then the wave has subsided to near historic levels.

The culling of courses is not viewed as a negative by NGF. The organization expects overall course supply to stop expanding in the absence of increases in demand. It is primarily the weaker courses that are closing and, in many cases, owners who sell are profiting from long-term real estate appreciation. Finally, a better quality overall golf supply means a better quality experience for players.

It's great that the course-a-day advocates are now okay with "culling."  

Thanks to reader Scott for this story on one course that would like to cull, or at least, cull portions in favor of housing, but can't thanks to a judge's order. 

"Rolling the ball back isn't going to change that; all that will do is save land"

Scotland on Sunday's John Huggan lets Hank Haney ramble on about how the game has never been tougher, and therefore, a little ball rollback that only impacts the tour pro would be a disaster.

"The biggest factor, however, is that golf courses today are generally so much more difficult than they used to be. What makes a course difficult - and you tend to see this whenever a big event is being played and the greenkeeper has prepared the place specially - is fast greens. Not only are fast greens more difficult to putt on and chip to, you have to hit your drives into the right spots if you are to have any chance of getting your approach shots close to the hole. When the ball runs after it lands, the game is always harder."

Okay, fine.
 

Shoulda stopped him there Huggy!

"It is no exaggeration to say that everything is more difficult these days. You have to be more precise in every aspect of the game. Look at it this way: I hear all kinds of talk these days about how modern equipment has made golf easier - at least at the highest level - but what has been done to make the parts of the game that amateurs find hardest any easier? Nothing. In fact, the opposite is true.

Uh, what do those things have to do with one another? 

"So, I just don't see where the game has gotten easier for the typical amateur. I think it is harder than it has ever been. And will continue to get harder, as long as courses get longer in response to the top 1 % of players. I have to say that makes no sense to me. Why do clubs worry about what the pros do?"

But hey, if we bring the pros back a little, won't the divide you speak of be fixed? Apparently not...

"Okay, I can see how the narrower fairways have reduced the incentive for players to shape shots," he concedes. "In the US Open at Winged Foot last year, the correct way to play the course was just to hit to the corner of the dogleg on every hole.

"But I'm not sure what people mean when they say that shot-making has been lost to the game.

Whoa there. He says there's no incentive to shape shots, but he doesn't see a disapperance of shotmaking?

The only thing that has really changed on tour is the clubs that are being hit to the greens. Players are a lot longer off the tee than they used to be. Where Ben Hogan was hitting a 2-iron, most guys are now hitting 7-irons. If that makes the game boring, then I would have to agree.

"But the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. If you haul the ball back 40 yards, you make the game so much worse it is incredible.

"Already we have a certain amount of players who the game has passed by, and that number would increase if the ball didn't go as far as it does now.

And we all know how hard it is to move tee markers UP.

"Golf, after all these years, has finally gotten like other sports. It hasn't changed because of the equipment or the ball: it has changed because better athletes are now playing the game.

Ahhh...it's been a while since anyone has mentioned the better athletes concept. Not since...oh right, all of that talk about steroid testing. 

"Every sport is the same. If you are small, you better be quick. If you are big and slow, there is a spot for you. If you are big and fast, you are a superstar. And golf has finally reached that point.

"So it isn't the ball. The problem is that there is such a big gap between those who can really 'send' their drives out there and those who can't. All of which takes the little guy out of the game. And that is the way it is in every sport."

So don't address the issue at the professional level because the amateur isn't reaping the benefits of the equipment like the pro. Brilliant.

This is an interesting point at least...

Indeed, Haney paints a pretty bleak picture of the future for a game that has, until now, not simply been a size and distance contest. "The new generation of golfers hit the ball so far, you can't roll the ball back," he maintains. "If that happened, Tiger's edge is only going to get bigger. The problem with distance is that height comes with it."

And my favorite...

"Rolling the ball back isn't going to change that; all that will do is save land, and make the game worse by widening the gap between long and short.

Save land? Exactly, why would you want to that. It's only land. Nike doesn't have to pay for it! 

The long hitters won't mind if the ball is rolled back. And they would love to see the grooves on wedges altered. That's all you need to know."

Oh yeah, end of debate!

Spin From Dawson

On the post of John Huggan's annual chat with R&A secretary Peter Dawson, reader John G posted something that I think needs further consideration since I glossed over it in the inital posting:

"We now see balls spinning more from 2in or 3in rough than they do when hit from the fairway."

I'm sorry, this quote just doesn't pass the smell test. I can't believe Huggan didn't pounce on this. Has anyone seen any research to confirm this kind of statement?

I would believe that spin rates from 2-3" rough could be similar, but not quite as good as from a normal fairway lie.

But BETTER spin rates from rough than from a nice tightly mown fairway?? C'mon. I'm not THAT gullible.

These guys are desperate to say anything to distract from the real issues.

So do you think the USGA/R&A will actually be able to prove that this has been the case (better spin rates from rough than fairway), and if so, does anyone buy it? 

Huggan On Uihlein: "He has to go."

Remember Wally, I just copy and paste this stuff. In fact, reader David sent this to me, so I didn't find it, didn't write it, didn't think of it. That said, John Huggan has you on his Santa wish list...

2 A NEW LEADER AT TITLEIST: Sadly, the man in charge of the world's biggest golf equipment company is a world-renowned point-misser.

In a position to do the world of golf a favour and agree to withdraw his tacit threat to sue if the game's hard-pressed administrators should make rules that will shorten the vast distances the very best players can propel shots, Wally Uihlein chooses instead to follow a policy that can only damage the sport and, by extension, his own company, in the long term.

Look at some of the nonsense that we already have to put up with: courses covered in long grass and stretched to something like 7,500 yards so as to all but eliminate from contention anyone not physically big enough to hit drives over 300 yards on a consistent basis - goodbye Justin Leonard and Corey Pavin and Andrew Coltart.

All of which is largely down to Uihlein's intransigence.

He has to go.

Way harsh Huggy!

I also liked his plea for more Geoff Ogilvy's and fewer carts in the U.S., but this was especially good:

7 A DROUGHT IN AMERICA: Having not long returned from a visit to Australia, where water is currently in very short supply, Santa would like to see those conditions replicated in the US.

Having sampled fast-running fairways and greens that only enhanced the strategic qualities of the likes of Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and the stunning Barnbougle Dunes, some of the same would do nothing but good in the land of 'hit and stick'.

Instead of wedging on to pudding-like greens from basically anywhere, Uncle Sam's nieces and nephews would suddenly be forced to consider where best to place their drives. Angles would have to be created in order that approach shots could be landed short and run up to the flag.

Thinking on the golf course? What a concept, eh?

Lift, Clean and...Entertain?

Since taking in a portion of Sunday's Target World Challenge at Sherwood, something's been bugging me about the playing conditions. Naturally it took until Wednesday for me to figure it out.

Now, I'm all for playing the ball down whenever necessary, especially in major championships.

But a Saturday rain combined with the newly sodded fairways (not draining worth a lick) led to poor conditions and balls covered with mud. Third round leader Geoff Ogilvy and eventual winner Tiger Woods hit their share of squirrely shots, with Ogilvy twice having mud wreak havoc that ultimately cost him a shot at defending his third round lead.

The decision not to play lift, clean and place sums up pretty much everything that I find disappointing about the current PGA Tour leadership: their consistent inablity to understand what makes golf entertaining to watch. As I understand it, this was tournament director Mark Russell's call, and it was not his best.

The Target World Challenge is an exhibition intended to entertain the fans, enrich the players and benefit a worthy cause. This is not the time to worry about the integrity of the game. The primary goal is to create some excitement, and in this case allowing the players to play shots with a clean ball would have been a lot more fun than what ultimately unfolded Sunday.

I appreciate the Tour's stated desire to uphold the traditions of the game, but this was not the time to do it.

If they want to get serious about integrity and protecting the traditions of the game, they should worry more about the impact of distance increases. I know, now I'm really delusional.

Target Practice

Tuesday's practice round at Sherwood was well attended by media eager to hear Tiger Woods address their questions in advance of the Target World Challenge.

I have to say it was the most boring Tiger press conference I've sat through, though there was one bizarre-bordering-on-awkward moment when Golf Magazine's Cameron Morfit asked a question and Tiger either didn't understand it, or just didn't like it.

Q.  You mentioned your skiing; are you a Black Diamond skier these days?  Black Diamond, the hardest?

TIGER WOODS:  It's not the hardest.

Q.  Double Black?
   
TIGER WOODS:  Mmhmm.  (Laughter).

Well it was more like (lots of long silence), mhm and (awkward laughter) at the strangeness of it all.

Naturally, I would not drive all the way out there with asking something, so here was my softball that actually seemed to stump him before he launched into his standard (and wonderful) diatribe on modern setup and design. Forgive my lousy phrasing...

Q.  Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus both when they did their design work, built dream courses or home clubs that hosted tournaments, do you see yourself taking on some sort of a project like that that's maybe your own concept for a course, and maybe it's a club just for your friends; and if so, what kind of course and place would it be?

TIGER WOODS:  Yes, and hopefully one day.  Obviously you have to get the right situation where you can do that, you can go ahead and design what you think is how golf should be played.  For me, I always believe in golf should have open front.  You should be able to utilize the ground and don't take away the short game.  I play golf courses on Tour and we all see it, miss the green, automatic lobwedge, hack it out of the rough.  That to me is not fun golf.  Fun golf is Pinehurst.  Fun golf is playing links golf.  Fun golf is learning to how to maneuver the ball on the ground and give yourself options.  One of the hardest up and downs is when you have options.  You have so many different ways to play and you see a lot of pros really mess up easy shots because they have so many different options.  I think that's taken away from the game of golf now, and ridiculous at how the modern golf courses are designed, that's how they are designed is they have taken that option away and that's too bad.

Huggan On Turner

John Huggan profiles Greg Turner's attempts to revitalize New Zealand golf and in particular, the development of young players.

Long frustrated by the virtual abandonment by New Zealand Golf - equivalent of the Scottish Golf Union - of his young compatriots the minute they turn professional - and, in turn, their consequent inability to make any sort of impact in any kind of numbers - the 43-year-old former European Tour player, who won 12 times around the world during an 18-year career highlighted by his role in the winning International side at the 1998 Presidents Cup, has devised an initiative named Wedge - Winning Edge - in an attempt to smooth what can be a traumatic transition from the amateur ranks.

And...

"Any high-performance programme is about producing world-class players," says Turner, whose elder brothers Brian and Glenn represented their country at hockey and cricket respectively. "Which is different from producing only world-class amateurs. My original expectation was that, once that subtle difference was made clear to New Zealand Golf, the irrefutable logic of it all would get them on board."

Well, naive is the word that comes to mind. "Things just don't happen that way in golf. Or, as it turned out after I talked with my advisory board, in many sports. By their very nature, sporting organisations are built on ancient foundations, and have layer upon layer of bureaucracy. They change course like a super-tanker."

All of which left Turner to battle on alone, having also gained little encouragement from the New Zealand PGA. "The PGA was no help either," he shrugs. "It exists to service the needs of club professionals, not to help young players make it in the game. Which is why the tours broke away from the PGAs in the first place. There are irreconcilable issues there.

"Having said that, the PGA should have got involved. At the end of the day, their members are best served by New Zealanders winning things like US Opens. More people are going to be buying sweaters and paying for lessons when success breeds interest in the game. But all of that does seem a leap too far in philosophy!"

So far as Turner's philosophy goes, a closer look at Wedge reveals a four-pronged high-performance system designed to bring the best out of every young player placed in its path.

"First, we offer logistical help. There is so much that needs to be explained to new professionals. They need to know where they should be playing, how the circuits work and how things work within the circuits. How do you enter events? How do you get to tour school? What's the most logical path to take? It's basic but important.

"We offer financial help, which doesn't mean we hand over a pile of cash. There is any number of corporations or individuals who would buy a piece of a young player, if you gave them a credible model to do just that. So the young lads need to offer, say, three-year contracts with 15 $10,000 shares, and have a monitoring board that has mentors like Grant Fox and Brett Stephen on it. They will sign off on expenses."

Suddenly, that is an attractive proposition for a golf-minded investor. "Then there is the mentoring itself. Our players will have access to the likes of Coutts and Oliver, men who have achieved at the very highest level. The kids can pick their brains on what it takes to succeed. Basically, they will be rubbing shoulders with winners.

"And the fourth part of the equation is the GTNZ series of tournaments, which will hopefully be the strongest possible domestic competitive arena. When our guys do make it out on tour, they will be a couple of steps further along the way because of those events at home."

"Holding onto...the Old Course as tests for elite players out of an obligation to the past is sheer folly."

It's time for another interesting tirade by Bollocks and Garbage Bomb and Gouge who put shopping above even the most sacred traditions. This time a reader wonders at what point the game breaks after sigificant advances render courses obsolete or pocketbooks empty and the Belch and Gulpers joined forces for this gem:

When does the game break? When it refuses to move forward by mindlessly clinging to the past. Amazing how Dr. Naismith let his game advance beyond the peach basket.

The USGA has changed its ball regulations as recently as 2004, and if you read the rule carefully, it may have even been more restrictive. But to your concern over the great venues, I can only offer this:

Myopia Hunt
Newport CC
Garden City
Prestwick
Musselburgh
Chicago GC

Oh but here's where it gets good.

We've had the courage to move past these venues as sites for major championships because for reasons of length, and sometimes more importantly, infrastructure, they stopped being relevant as a site.

Courage? Well, I guess placing consumption over Chicago Golf Club does take courage.

They didn't stop being relevant as significant golf courses. Are their places in history any less secure for not being part of any major championship rota today. No. But holding onto the Winged Foots, the Augusta Nationals and Merions and even the Old Course as tests for elite players out of an obligation to the past is sheer folly. Let's remember that Merion didn't host a U.S. Open until 1934, nearly 40 years after the U.S. Open began. They had the courage to do new and different things back then. Where is the courage to do the same today?

True, it does take courage to move golf's most historic events to lousy new 8,000 yard courses in order to preserve the right to buy a new driver every year. It takes even more courage to put such a thought in print.

"We move on."

In working through my issues as diagnosed by Brandy and Gin Bomb and Gouge over at GolfDigest.com, I went back to read their diagnosis and noticed that a rather spirited debate was taking place.

Since this stuff can only be read in small doses, let's start with Gouge's (Mike Stachura) reply to Chuck, who was pointing out that allowing significant distance increases to occur has the dreaded side effect of leading to unnecessary architectural changes.

GOUGE responds: It is unfortunate that some people like yourself continue to believe that journalistic integrity is dead. But so be it. I have no financial stake in the equipment debate. As for Mr. Tarde's statements in print, well, they are his, they are not always mine. That is the beauty of a public forum. That is the beauty and strength of our enterprise as a magazine. And the only thing I must admit is that the game must adapt. I have no impractical affinity for maintaining the relevance of venues of the past. If a great course from the past is no longer a sufficient test for the .0001 percent of the universe of golfers, that is not a tragedy. We move on. If Winged Foot, Augusta National and even the Old Course get left behind as outdated and irrelevant for championship golf, I cry no tears. That leaves those majestic venues for the 99.9999 percent of us who can still appreciate their greatness. But thanks for your thoughts. The discourse shows the game itself still has meaning.

It's amazing what grown men will do to preseve their shopping privileges!

Apparently, whipping out the credit card to purchase new hope that's scientifically proven to not significantly help 99.9999 percent "of us," is more important to the game of golf than playing the Masters at Augusta National or the Open Championship at St. Andrews.

What makes it all so bizarre, is that even if the game were bifurcated or the ball rolled back to preserve these venues, people will still buy plenty of balls and clubs and the pro game might be a lot more fun to watch.

"I feel like I am playing the same golf week in, week out."

Robert Allenby joins the list of players bemoaning the sameness of PGA Tour golf...

"America, it is just very much the same every week and I am bored, I get a little bit bored with it and I feel like I am playing the same golf week in, week out," he said.

"Whereas if you come down here and play or in Europe, you are playing different golf shots every week."

"It's all about money. It's all about the pension."

From Seth Soffian in the News-Press of Southwest Florida:

Greg Norman drew the ire of some PGA Tour members recently when he criticized today's players for lacking charisma and the overt desire to challenge world No. 1 Tiger Woods.

On Saturday, he drew support from partner Nick Faldo in the Merrill Lynch Shootout. After their round, Faldo told CBS, for whom he will become lead analyst next year, that the riches in today's game have robbed players of the single-minded will to win.

"It's all about money. It's all about the pension," Faldo said after Norman again raised the topic.