"To make the golf course a little more competitive to par"

Doug Ferguson looks at the utter meaninglessness of par as a barometer of a successful championship, and why everyone still clings to it's value even though they know better.

"We can get caught up too much in numbers," Ben Crenshaw said Monday. "You still add up your score at the end of the round. And they're still going to give the trophy away to the guy with the lowest score."

That's worth noting because twice in the last three weeks on the Florida swing, the courses have played as a par 70. Mark Wilson won the four-man playoff at the Honda Classic after finishing at 5-under 275 at PGA National, which sounds like a more grueling week than if they had finished at 13-under 275.

Now, Palmer has converted Nos. 4 and 16 at Bay Hill into par-4s, and it will play as a par 70 for the first time in the Arnold Palmer Invitational Thursday through Sunday.

"I did it just to make the golf course a little more competitive to par," Palmer said.

Oh joy! Thank God the NCAA tournament will be on at the same time.

A couple of players earn big points for these comments...

Todd Hamilton might have the best solution. The former British Open champion would like to see only one number on the signs at every tee, and that would be to identify what hole you're playing.

"Get rid of the par. Get rid of the yardage," he said. "Go play the course."

And...

If a player was trailing by one shot coming down the stretch, the last reasonable place to make up ground was the 16th. Find the fairway and you would have a shot at reaching in two and make birdie at worst.

"I thought 16 was a great swing hole," Trevor Immelman said. "You have to hit the fairway, and then you might have a mid-iron to the green. And if you miss the fairway and lay up, you could spin the ball off the green and then you could make bogey. I felt like it was such a great hole coming to the end of the tournament."

And, in lieu of one of his snappy baseball metaphors, David Fay at least hovered on the verge of a Yogi-ism:

"I do think there's a school of thought out there that the USGA is fixated on par," Fay said. "We're not fixated on par, but we like the idea that par is a good score."

Not fixated, but we really fixate on the idea of as a good score.

"I pray that it doesn't come to that."

There have been several stories like this Mark Gillespie piece that quote Ping Golf Chairman and CEO John Solheim complaining about the USGA's proposed groove rule change.

"It's straight back to where we were before," Solheim said.

And... 

 "Will the average player get the same enjoyment they get out of shots now?" Solheim asked. "The average golfer likes to see a little spin on the green and feel they've accomplished something."

Solheim said Ping will submit comments to the USGA and will weigh its options.

Asked if that could mean more litigation, Solheim said, "I pray that it doesn't come to that."

What am I missing here?

Won't this rule change be a Godsend for equipment manufacturers, who can now sell new irons to all those wannabe "elite golfers" by 2009? 

Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word?

Golfweek's Alistair Tait says the USGA/R&A braintrust is way too late on the grooves and distance issues, with little hope for a happy resolution.

However, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to recognize that the game has changed immeasurably, no matter what the governing bodies tell us. Yes, the objective of getting the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible hasn't changed, but the means of doing so have.

It wasn't that long ago that John Daly was the only player to hit drives over 300 yards, now every Tom, Dick or Bubba seems to be able to do that.

You can't blame the equipment manufacturers. It's not as if they went out and broke the rules. They acted within the guidelines laid down by the governing bodies. After all, it wasn't the manufacturers who changed the specifications to allow square grooves, but the governing bodies.

Moreover, golf's two ruling bodies sat blithely by as manufacturers experimented with metal woods, graphite shafts, long putters, and did absolutely nothing.

Now they are trying to turn back the clock.

It can't be done. All this talk of rolling back the ball is just that. Try doing that and watch the writs fly. And rightly so. If I was a ball manufacturer who had acted within the rules laid down by both the R&A and USGA at all times, I'd be pretty ticked off if they turned round to me and said, "Oh, by the way, we've made a small mistake and we need you to change the way you produce your product."

The words, "Get my lawyer on the phone" spring to mind.

This grooves rethink isn't the start of some technological fight back. As far as I'm concerned they are merely putting a sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

We are where we are. The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in because there is no way the R&A and USGA can fight the manufacturers in the courts. All they can do now is try to draw a line in the sand.

Now, we all know that the R&A was utterly useless until recently, and the USGA was held back by the R&A's incompetence on equipment issues along with that messy legal situation where each of their members could be named in a manufacturer lawsuit. We also know that in testing areas, the USGA has been slow to keep up with the manufacturers (by their own admission).

So wouldn't a simple "sorry, we goofed, this has to be done for the good of the game" apology go a long way in this discussion? 

The State of the Game

Ryan Ballengee takes a comprehensive (and I mean comprehensive) look at the state of the game, the impact of technology and other elements.

This was an interesting positive, among many other not so uplifting conclusions:

 In its 2006 report at the annual Golf 20/20 Conference, PGA of America President Roger Warren showed that the Play Golf America program may be achieving its goals. Website hits were way up, the number of participating facilities increased, and there was a 21% in the number of people utilizing free lessons during PGA Free Lesson Month. The American Express Women's Golf Week saw a 159% increase in the number of female players participating. Among those participants in those events, 23% and 52% of each described themselves as new golfers. Among all participants for both programs, 41% and 22% respectively then went on to signup for a tee time at a golf facility afterward. Play Golf America also claims a 79% one-year retention rate for its new golfer participants. In all, this is very striking data in the face of NGF data that may indicate a contrarian trend before (and maybe during) Play Golf America.

Is College Golf Doing A Disservice To Americans?

In the March, 2007 Golf Digest, Hank Haney looks at the state of American golf and questions whether the college golf system is helping produce the best possible players.

More interesting is Ryan Herrington's blog post at GolfDigest.com taking aim at some of Haney's points.

The Nicklaus Golf Digest Article, Vol. 4

Some more comments of interest from his co-authored piece with Jaime Diaz:

I hope we’re not running people out of the game. As it has become an easier game to play for the pros, the trend toward more severe courses has made it harder for the amateur.

In most cases, the farther the amateur is able to hit the ball, the farther the ball goes off line. The old average drive was in the 190-yard range, but now it’s more like 210 to 220. And on many of the newer courses, off line means searching for golf balls. It’s making the game slower, and a lot less fun.

Oh and don't forget Jack, more dangerous for the townhomes on the rim. Sorry, continue...

The game is more popular than ever among avid golfers with the income and leisure to play a lot, but most people have less free time than ever. The current generation of younger parents spends a lot more time supervising their kids than previous generations, and it means they find it harder to justify a weekend round of golf. Leaving for the course at 7 in the morning and coming back at 3 in the afternoon is a hard sell for a family man. But getting back in time for lunch wouldn’t be.

That’s why we should consider the possibility of making 12 holes a standard round. It might mean breaking up 18-hole facilities into three segments of six holes. Of course it would meet resistance, but eventually it would be accepted because it would make sense in people’s lives.

And this is the best part, addressing the ridiculous attacks made against him over the years by folks who, if confronted by the greatest of them all, would never dare to question his motives and would blabber all over him about being their hero. But behind his back...he's just bitter...right!

Those who say that my comments are intended to help my course-design business are wrong. As a designer, I benefit financially from more land used, more renovations, more penal features. As for people thinking I favor a rollback in equipment because I don’t want Tiger to break my record, going back to older-style equipment would help, not hurt, Tiger because his skill level would make a bigger difference. If we took equipment back today, he might win 30 majors instead of 20.

I’m more interested in the game of golf than in my records. I did what I could do in my time, and it was the best I could do. Now I just want what’s best for the game.

"It's the chair off the Titanic"

Jack's really, really excited about the the groove rule change impacting distance gains from the ball really good stretching programs. Plugging the President's Cup with Gary Player, he was asked about adjustable equipment.

JACK NICKLAUS: I need one every day anyway, so that's all right. I need an adjustable driver. You never know what swing I'm going to bring along. I don't think either one of them mean very much, but it's -- I guess it's a start, I suppose. But it's the chair off the Titanic, I guess (laughter).

Q. Jack, this is another regulatory question. I enjoyed your comments in Golf Digest with Jaime Diaz on many subjects, but the suggestion about rolling back the ball 10 percent, which I know both of you had advocated. Jack, where would most of the opposition to doing this actually come from? And the other question is for the average player, would they -- what would be the benefit, potential benefit, of doing that?

JACK NICKLAUS: Well, there's several things. We don't have time for all of it. But one, if you take the ball and roll it back, whatever the percentage might be, you really are bringing about 17,000 or 18,000 or 19,000 golf courses in the United States that are basically obsolete to the professional, you're bringing those back into play for a possible event or something where the professionals can go play.

If you have the average golfer, now has a golf ball that is so high tech and clubs that are so high tech that they may hit the ball on the face of the golf course maybe one out of ten shots, and when they hit one out of ten shots on the face, they say, wow, look how far that goes, and they love it. But the other nine shots, because it is so high tech when they miss it, it goes much shorter than it would have if they didn't have such a high tech piece of equipment or ball. So learning how to play golf -- part of this whole thing is to bring people in the game and keep them in the game. And if you have a golf ball that you don't know whether you're going to hit it on the face or not hit it on the face and there's 50 yards of difference between a good shot and a bad shot, it's hard to learn how to play golf.

This is fun...

Back when we were playing, granted, the ball didn't go as far, the clubs didn't hit it as far, but the difference between me and the club champion in most places was 15 or 20 yards at max. I could go to any course and play an exhibition, and I'll bet Gary can say the same, we'd go to play an exhibition and the club champ was playing, in the old conditions the club champ had a chance of beating us. Today, 7,400, 7,500 yards, 7,600, that the pros have to play it from to be competitive, the club champ has got no chance. I'd love to see the game be brought together for the average golfer and the pros together.

Ah...that makes a lot of sense Jack. We can't have that! Oh you weren't done...

Now, you say what's the advantage to the average golfer? Well, the average golfer, they have the ability to always move back on the golf course, the pros don't. Likewise, they have the ability to move up on a golf course, and so do the pros. If you're playing the average golfer at 6,500 yards and it's too long for them, they can move to 6,400 or 6,300 pretty easy. I just think making a game, playing it -- I sort of liken it to the small ball and the large ball 35 years ago, whatever it was, in Britain. They took the large ball and made a condition for competition and made it the same as a U.S. ball. And after about a year or so, they left the small ball and all the conditions that the small ball had for the average golfer.

Well, after about a year or so, they found that the college players, the junior golfers, the amateur golfers, anyone who wanted to play competition were playing the large ball, and the rest of the golfers were left out by playing a golf ball that was not the same. So they actually legislated -- I think the legislature came more from the average golfer than from the pros to bring the large ball for everybody. I would rather see the same thing here. If you decided -- if we only did it for the pros and made the conditions for competition, then all of a sudden I think that would be a step in one direction, and then all of a sudden the average golfer is always going to play to want what the pro plays.

It's going to be fun when one of the companies actually sells one of these balls at a Pine Valley or Merion and it just snowballs from there. I'd hate to be a shareholder in one of the companies that doesn't adjust!

Right now all they advertise on television is, "play what the pros play." Well, they can't play it. They just don't have the clubhead speed to play it. But if we brought everything back -- we could get everything back relatively the same. If you left the golf ball for the average golfer in conditions for competition, I think the average golfer in a year would ask for the other ball and the other condition. The whole point of that whole thing is to try to bring the average golfer or the good single-digit player and the pro closer so when they're watching it on television or they're watching the game that they feel like they're watching the same game that they might have a chance to play.

Q. Where does most of the opposition to doing that come from?

JACK NICKLAUS: Well, I wish I knew, really. I suppose there are probably -- I don't know. Could be ball manufacturers probably, but not -- I never really spoken to any ball manufacturer who has actually told me that they're against it. I've spoken to quite a few who are for it.

Hmmm...

Well, that's just a rally that needs to be killed...

Q. This question is for both you. With Tiger and Phil getting into the golf course design business, I wonder if you can tell me to what degree does being a great golfer help you become a great golf course designer?

Golf Digest: Groove Announcement Coming Soon

The Brood and Gloom guys at GolfDigest.com report that the USGA's pathetic backdoor attempt at not dealing with the real issue elimination of the U-groove is about to be announced, and someone at the R&A seems to have confirmed so.

Still, several industry sources contacted by Golf World believe the ruling is coming sooner rather than later. The R&A's David Rickman commented recently that a rule proposal was in the offing. "We are in the throes of various meetings and wouldn't want to pre-empt their outcome,” Rickman told The Scotsman newspaper. “But all the signs are that we're very close to going out with 'notice and comment.’ ” When asked about Rickman’s statement, USGA senior technical director Dick Rugge did not dispute that a proposal could happen in the near future, although he declined to offer a specific timetable.

Bowel and Groin also address how this might affect the average golfer. 

The good news for average golfers? You won’t have to buy all new conforming stuff by next year. I’m guessing old stuff will be grandfathered for a pretty significant period of time (minimum five years is my guess). The other good news? It’s either going to make everybody a better golfer (increased pace of play) or half the golfing population quit (plenty of tee times for the rest of us). You start flying greens or having short chip shots run 30 feet by, and you either learn to hit fairways and greens or you throw your clubs in the woods. Whatever you do, though, buy a urethane-covered ball, which is the real hidden gem in the USGA's 180-page report on grooves research.

Okay, they lost me there. Anyone know where we can read up on this urethane stuff in the 180-page report?

Meanwhile, for more on what actually goes on with the grooves and why the USGA sees this is a backdoor approach to the distance issue, check out Mike Stachura's (is he Bulldoze or Gravel?) recent Golf Digest story on grooves.

The Nicklaus Golf Digest Article, Vol. 2

Has there ever been a more conscise summary of what the distance issue is all about?

We have about 16,000 courses in the United States. Almost all of them are obsolete for tournament play. For them to become relevant, we need to roll back the ball about 40 yards. That or rebuild all the fairway bunkers at 300 yards. Which is what we’re doing, and it costs a fortune. Instead of changing equipment, we’re changing golf courses. It’s great for my business. I’m making a living redoing my old courses. But the game should be able to go back to the classic courses just as they are. Why should we be changing all those golf courses? It’s ridiculous.

Trying to build great courses today is more complicated than ever. I’ve decided it’s best to basically design for the enjoyment of the average golfer. That’s what works best for the owners, who are selling memberships and selling their land. I was once accused of designing courses that were too severe. A lot of that was because I was designing a lot of tournament courses.

Creating a true challenge for the best professional players for one week of golf makes it too tough for the average player who is going to play it the rest of the year. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to make the game better for more golfers is to take the driver out of the hands of the elite player. So I tighten up the landing areas for them. It’s kind of a sad compromise, but I think it’s the only solution we’ve got. 

Actually, it's not a sad compromise if we could just make driver absolutely worthless on all championship courses. Then driver sales would plummet and just maybe some of the companies would say wait a second we need to roll back the...ah forget it, what was I thinking?

"Some questions need to be asked, and some solutions need to be found."

Ron Sirak on the match play and state of American golf:

What we saw at Tucson was the world. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, there is everything right with that. Much of the rest of the world has caught up to the United States in golf. And if the Americans are going to keep from falling farther behind some questions need to be asked, and some solutions need to be found.

Too bad Big John, Eyebrows, Tillie and Sham aren’t around to help sort this out. They may not have the answers, but I’m pretty sure they would identify this problem: America needs to figure out how to get better at golf. Maybe in defeat motivation will be found.

Hey I have a thought. How about no longer embracing mediocrity as something to be proud of?

The Nicklaus Golf Digest Article, Vol. 1

With the Nissan Open and the Golf Industry Show, I'm finally getting around to Jack Nicklaus's essay in the March Golf Digest.

Written with the assistance of Jaime Diaz, the piece is monumental on a number of levels. First, it is by far the most space devoted in a major golf publication to the distance issue and its impact since Nicklaus and George Peper penned similar views in Golf Magazine (circa 1998 I believe).  

What I loved most here is Nicklaus's defense of the claims that his motives are not pure. Actually there's a lot to love here, and I know our Fairhaven readers will especially enjoy this week-long look at Jack's rant.

The best golfers should be better today than the best golfers of yesterday. At the moment, I’m not sure that’s the case. I realize I’m an old fuddy-duddy, and that previous generations always say that their game was better. I guess I’d plead guilty—in part. But here’s the difference. The game in terms of equipment barely changed for 60 years. Then with the equipment revolution that began with metal clubheads in the ’80s and accelerated with dramatic ball technology in the late ’90s, the game changed radically. The best players suddenly found themselves able to hit shots more easily and consistently, as well as pull off shots they never would have tried in the past. It made the game for elite players simpler and easier.

Simpler. Very nice. Attention Ponte Vedra: that means less interesting to watch.

As a result, I don’t care as much for today’s game as I did for the one played for most of my career. I like the old game of moving the ball both ways and using strategy with angles, and hitting all the clubs in the bag.

My greatest concern, because I believe it has the most effect on the most parts of the game, is the golf ball. I’d very much like to see the U.S. Golf Association and the R&A institute at least a 10-percent rollback in the distance the golf ball travels. I know the ruling bodies are looking at limits on equipment, including possibly reducing the size of driver clubheads and eliminating square grooves, but that’s treating an effect more than a cause. The desired results from such moves could be taken care of by a rollback in the ball. In fact, there would be much less need to limit equipment innovations that help amateurs play if the ball were rolled back.

Which once again raises the question, why do Callaway, Taylor Made and Nike oppose a ball rollback?

And just to put the tournament ball talk to rest...

I don’t think a rollback should restrict an elite player’s options in customizing the golf ball he or she would play. It’s OK with me for, say, a player with a low ball flight to get some help by using a model of ball with a dimple pattern that creates a higher launch, or a guy whose angle into the ball generates an excess of spin getting a ball that spins less. In other words, I wouldn’t want to see every player having to use the same exact “tournament ball” picked out of a jar on the first tee. As long as players could keep the ball characteristics that best suit their games, I honestly believe it would take them only a few rounds to completely adjust to a rolled-back ball that doesn’t fly quite as far.

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!