L.A. Times Public Golf Special Section

Colorization of a historic Griffith Park clubhouse photo by Tom Naccarato (click to enlarge)The L.A. Times has published a meaty special section today on L.A. public golf. It includes my plea for a restoration of George Thomas's Griffith Park restoration and my architectural critique of 10 great values. and five overrrated layouts.

There's also Daniel Wexler's guide to historic courses and his look at desert golf.

There's also Tiger's memories of SoCal golf and Thomas Bonk looks at the renovated Torrey Pines South.

Peter Yoon covers the impact of internet-based tee time reservation systems.

Glenn Bunting talks to Dave Pelz.

And the editors make their picks for the best of SoCal golf.

"Somewhere it has all gone wrong.”

Paul Forsyth talked to Geoff Ogilvy for a Sunday Times profile.  Thanks to reader John for reminding about this.

“I’m not against the course being lengthened, but the fairways were never meant to be narrow. The point was that you had a paddock to hit into, but you had to make a decision as to what side of the fairway was good. Now you don’t have a choice.” Ogilvy regrets that technology has drastically changed many of the world’s great courses, rendered some of them redundant, and diminished the game’s entertainment value. By responding to Tiger Woods’s every achievement with more rough and more yards, they have made the spectacle more boring.

“You don’t need an array of shots any more, and that’s not good for spectators. Who wants to watch us drive into the rough, chip out to 80 yards, and try to get up and down? There is no excitement in that, no imagination or strategy. One day, somebody will realise that the score relative to par does not reflect the quality of a golf tournament.”

I like this...

By now, Ogilvy is getting everything off his chest, suggesting a think tank of the 100 smartest minds in golf to address the game's problems. “It is in everybody’s interests because it appears, in America anyway, that fewer and fewer people are playing the game. In the old days, you went out in a Saturday threeball, and in under three hours, you would be back in the clubhouse having a beer. Now, it costs you £150 and it takes five hours. At some courses, you’re driving a cart, so you don’t talk to anyone, and you’ve lost eight balls in the rough. Somewhere it has all gone wrong.”

And on the state of world golf... 

There ought to be more, however. Henrik Stenson, the Swede who last month denied Ogilvy a successful defence of his WGC-Accenture Match Play title, is still having to justify his rise to fifth in the world. “It’s incredible,” says the Australian. “Henrik plays well, and they all start questioning the validity of the world ranking system, but he has won four times in the past year. In the Match Play, they were talking as though this guy had never played golf before, and yet he had beaten Tiger in Dubai two weeks earlier. Some people here have a hard time looking past the borders of their own country.”

Ogilvy could do with another big win to cement his reputation. His US Open triumph would not have been possible without the dramatic collapse of Phil Mickelson, Colin Montgomerie and Padraig Harrington. “Another major would make the first one more credible, but I’m not in this to influence what people think of me,” he says. “I just like doing it. Standing on the 18th tee at Winged Foot was the most fun I have ever had in my life. We don’t know how lucky we are.”

“You’ll see some interesting creative in that regard in the next several weeks.”

The "IMG World Congress of Sports" included a Wednesday panel gathering that featured USGA CMO Barry Hyde, The Golf Channel's GOLF CHANNEL's Dave Manougian, Golf World's Geoff Russell and the PGA Tour's Ty Votaw. Oh, IMG's Mark Steinberg was also listed as a participant at The Pierre, but he's not included in this snippet of topics, intros and highlights (we've been mercifully spared the full transcript.) Instead a suit from FedEx named Bill Margaritas filled in (no, this is not an excerpt from Dan Jenkins' next novel).

Anyway, brace yourselves. Lots of product and growth references in "Growing The Business of Golf in the Years Ahead."

The issue: What is the state of golf?

The skinny: In an audience poll on the health of golf, only 14 percent said golf is healthier now than it ever has been; 28 percent said it was healthier than in 2000. Votaw: “All indices (prize money, sponsorship, TV partnerships) are up.”

Yes, he said indices. It's not coterminous, but it's pretty good!

Russell: “I half agree with what Ty said. The business of golf is pretty healthy, but it’s always a challenge to keep it going. That success is going to be hard to maintain.”

Most panelists agreed that fan interest in the game is up. Manougian: “We think the sport’s in great shape.” Russell: “It is for you, you’ve got the (cable) contract now.”

You know these writer types Dave, always ready with a pithy comeback to taint the brand.

Manougian later added, “We must take the necessary steps to becoming a true, fan-friendly sport.”

Margaritas expressed excitement about the changing demographics of fans and top players in regards to sex, nationalily and diversity.

Top players are changing sex? I mean, I know about Mianne Bagger, but who else?

Greatest hit: Votaw: “I’m not sure it’s healhier than ever, but I think it’s certainly healthier than it was in 2000.”

In 2000, did they have to scramble to find sponsors and fill spots on the schedule to replace tournaments that died? Help me, my memory is just not what it used to be.

The issue: Tiger Woods’ effect on the PGA Tour.

The skinny: Russell: “If you’re a sponsor of a PGA Tour event and you look down the road and you know you’re not going to get Tiger Woods you’ve got a real marketing problem. You’ve got to come up with another way to make your tournament interesting.”

Votaw grimaced during some of Russell’s comments, then said, “There are a lot of dymanics about whether sponsors sign with tournaments, and that’s beyond Tiger.”

Ah, the MBA's answer to squirming out of a tricky topic: dynamics. There are many dynamics involved and all you idiots just don't understand them! 

The issue: Measuring the success of the new FedEx Cup playoff format.

The skinny: Margaritas: “I think its going to be good with or without Tiger. It’s going to cast the spotlight on some other players.”

Are we already conceding that Tiger is not going to be a full time participant in the playoffs?

Russell: “I’m waiting for Tiger Woods to say, ‘This is fantastic, I’ll be at all four events and I can’t wait to win the FedEx Cup.’ I don’t remember him saying that.”

Votaw: “You’ll see some interesting creative in that regard in the next several weeks.”

Some interesting creative. Oh goodie, more lame PSA's!

Russell: “I think when we do it once it will be interesting. But if Tiger doesn’t play then you’ve got a problem.”

Votaw: “If he does play every event are you going to write what an unqualified success it is?”

Russell: “You’ll probably see more positive words about it than if he didn’t show up.”

An audience poll found 45 percent of believe some top players won’t play more events this season.

Manougian: “When we get into the playoffs I don’t think there’s any question there will be more excitement about (those events) than ever before. People will debate the degree of success.”

Greatest hit: Russell: “For this thing to work you have to have those top players play.”

Glad we settled that.

The issue: The Tour as a TV product.

The skinny: Votaw addressed the type of the demographics of viewers watching Tour telecasts, saying, “I think you can say old is unnattractive, but you can say rich is very attractive. …The afflueunce, educational and income levels and executive levels make golf very attractive. We wouldn’t be fully sponsored or have the number of broadcast hours.”

And why is it again that you are consumed with youth and pandering to the 18-34 year olds? 

Hyde said, “When you’re talking to media buyers they’re saying they love golf because it’s the corporate office plus the high end consumer audience.”

Votaw said of the new cable TV deal with Golf Channel, “We’re not going to making short-term assessments or adjustments based on what’s a long-term deal. That’s why we made a 15-year deal.”

Oh that makes sense. A 15-year experiment to see how it works. 

The issue: Michelle Wie’s future in golf.

The skinny: An audience poll found 67 percent believe Wie should no longer play in men’s events. Most panelists agreed that she needs to find success on the LGPA [sp.] before attempting to cross over.

Russell said, “Being in the business of covering her, I don’t think it’s in her or our best interests when she doesn’t play well. It’s tough not to start to get jaded as a journalist to watch her withdraw from tournaments. … We’re in the business of being critical of people when they play like that.” Votaw said, “If that happens and you continue to be critical of her, the marketplace will catch up to that at some point and it will no longer be a compelling situation to have her in the field. The market will ultimately determine whether or not she should or should not play on the PGA Tour.”

Ah those market forces. And here I thought it was a matter of her breaking par.

And believe it or not there was one good suggestion on the panel.

Panelists where asked what they would do as LPGA or PGA Tour commissioner for a day.

Hyde said, “Create more difference week to week. Some alternative formats and work hard at creating a personality for every tournament.”

You see Barry, alternative formats require thought and for players to adapt. Same with varied course setups. Very dangerous ground we'd be on here. You risk engaging platforms that are very complicated like the Stableford scoring or match play. That distinct variety impacts the indices and delivers too many dynamics that might engender consumer confusion.

Manougian said, “Making the brand relevant to Gen Y.”

Greatest hit: Votaw said, “There’s no upside for me to answer that question, really.”

And on that note...

"It's just a shame that it's come to that."

This really just sums it all up so beautifully.

Paul Azinger, as quoted by Tim Rosaforte in this week's Golf World (no link): 

"I don't have a problem with [converting the holes], but it's more of a Band-Aid, really," said Paul Azinger. "The manufacturers have outsmarted the rules of the game and we don't have a commissioner in place who plays golf, so he has not clue what to do. It's just a shame that it's come to that."

I'll be setting up a Paypal option for those of you who'd like to help Paul pay the inevitable fine for this brilliance. 

"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.