Hawkins On State Of The Game

Finally got around to John Hawkins' essay on the state of the game, which artfully sidestepped a few sticky issues while also offering some good, solid honest assessments about the golf industry. (And nice to see Golf World not simply devote its 60th anniversary issue to patting itself on the back).

He's especially good in this piece when taking on the question of whether the game needs to grow and produce new players.

Of course, one man's game is another man's business. Without growth, you're standing still, and if you're standing still in a public sector, some guy in a striped tie won't be getting his obese year-end bonus. You can't rightfully begrudge a man for driving profit margins--the dude wants to retire early so he can, ahem, go play golf--but the organizations that want most to grow golf have an obvious financial stake in their message. The PGA of America on a recreational level, the PGA Tour in terms of spectators and TV viewers--both operations regularly compromise the game's essence and integrity to generate additional revenue for themselves.

But do they really have to compromise the game's essence in this pursuit?

On a smaller point, I thought this was a great observation. 

Woods' greatness brought golf a fleeting burst of mainstream presence for a couple of years, but the novelty has long since worn off, and now we've returned to the second row of the sports hierarchy.

We saw the same thing happen in the early '90s with the Senior PGA Tour. A sexy mix of clock-punching club pros (Tom Wargo, Larry Laoretti) and silver superstars (Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino) created a ton of buzz, prompting former commissioner Deane Beman to make a 40-week schedule out of the concept. By the time Woods began reconfiguring the game's competitive landscape at the far end of the decade, Geritol Ball was just a cute little fad whose meter had expired.

Which is why it's crucial to close off the Champions Tour Q-school to more of those clock punching club pros and other non-PGA Tour lifers so that we can see Mike Reid gets in 25 starts! 

“We’ve got to get back to basics, back to A.W. Tillinghast, to Donald Ross-type courses"

Lee Trevino tells the Boston Herald's Joe Gordon:

“I’m real concerned about golf because we’re losing golfers every day,” Trevino said. “Golf has declined since 2000. The PGA, the USGA - no one is doing a damned thing about it. And I’ll tell you what the (problem) is: It’s too expensive to play and the reason is that these courses they’re building are too difficult and the maintenance is too high. People can’t play them, they lose too many balls. It takes too long to play.”

And...

“We’ve got to get back to basics, back to A.W. Tillinghast, to Donald Ross-type courses,” he said. “They’re 7,000 yards long and tight, but without a lot of water or hazards, so people can get around. I want to get into it full time because I’m 67 and I don’t play much any more. I’ve got nothing but time.”

Perfection Is Boring

Thanks to reader Rob for noting Lorne Rubenstein's column pondering the perfection of Muirfield Village's conditioning and role that such pristine conditions play in the game.

The problem is that golfers, and not only tour professionals, expect perfect conditions in modern golf. They want to know that a ball hit into a spot in the fairway will stay there and not careen madly off a firm slope into a bunker. When they do find sand, they expect a perfect lie. They also expect the sand to be the same in every bunker on the course.

Nicklaus took some action in this regard. He furrowed the bunkers last year so that not every ball that settles into the sand will sit up. Some players whined. The furrows aren't as deep this year, but they're still furrowed. "Bunkers are meant to be a hazard," Nicklaus said. "Why have them otherwise?"

That's a good point. Nevertheless, Muirfield Village and most every PGA Tour course still offers ideal conditions. But golf was never meant to be played on courses so produced and contrived that they might as well be domed. Barring wild weather or stupidly narrow fairways and rough so high that there's no shot to play but a hard thwack out, today's courses are mostly the same and mostly boring.

"Why do they want to stop Tiger or Phil [Mickelson] or Ernie [Els] from playing great golf?"

That's Neil Coles talking, subject of John Huggan's Tea On A Sunday In Scotland Scotland On Sunday column this week. Coles not only talks abou this fear of flying, but golf in America, the state of the game and--close your eyes Fairhaven readers--the dreaded ball. Take it away Mr. Coles...

"I have no regrets about not playing more over there. I did three tours in America. The money was no good anywhere else. I didn't really enjoy it much, to be honest. The life wasn't for me. The sameness of the motels and the courses was boring. And there was no prospect of taking a week off to go home for a break. My best finish over there was third place in Palm Springs. I won $1,500 for that. My game was reasonably well suited to the courses, and I enjoyed the big ball."

Ah, the ball. Like so many of his contemporaries, Coles has watched the evolution of golf at the highest level over the past decade or so with something akin to horror. The modern game, all crash-bang-wallop, is a long way from the subtle, nuanced sport that he played at his peak.

"There is no doubt that shaping shots is a lot more difficult these days," he sighs. "The ball doesn't curve like it used to. The small ball had to be shaped in order to get any sort of control. You had to hold it up in crosswinds. It was so lively. If these guys played with a small ball today, they wouldn't know what had hit them.

"The arrival of the big ball in Europe had an effect on the type of player who could be successful. I remember little guys like Dai Rees, Sid Scott, Charlie Ward and Ken Bousfield being successful. They would have no chance today. So the big ball changed the face of golfers. They got bigger and stronger. The little guy is very much the exception nowadays.

"Now, is that for the better? I don't know, but it is certainly different. It's my contention that we can't go on improving the ball. The golf courses are going to have to be 8,000 yards to challenge the top players, and they will be unplayable for everyone else."

Putting on his course architect's hat for a moment, Coles is as close to animated as he can get, and his fear for the future of the sport in which he has spent his life is obvious.

"I think if we got the R&A and the USGA around this table, they would agree about the ball going too far. But they are scared of lawsuits. And the problem is that, in order to keep the scores up, major championship courses are being set up in ever more extreme ways.

"I shudder when thinking of Carnoustie in 1999 or the US Open at Shinnecock in 2004. And the Masters this year was borderline. I do wonder if the punter wants to pay good money to watch top players scuffing around like they did at those three events. The very best players were embarrassed. I don't want to see that. I want to see people going round in the 60s, and making birdies and eagles. That's entertainment to me.

"I subscribe to the view that a great golf course should yield low scores to a great player playing well. If it doesn't, there is something wrong with that course. If someone as good as Tiger [Woods] shoots 20 under par to win, it is a compliment to the golf course. That's my philosophy, but it isn't everyone's.

"Clearly, the USGA want par to win the US Open every year. They don't seem to care that they are putting on a show for millions of people. I don't understand where they are coming from. Why do they want to stop Tiger or Phil [Mickelson] or Ernie [Els] from playing great golf?"

"They couldn't be friggin' further apart"

Jack Nicklaus is now using friggin' while talking about equipment and the governing bodies, this time to ESPN.com's Gene Wojciechowski:

Nicklaus said he thinks Tour commissioner Tim Finchem has done "a great job." So I tell him he's been named Golf Czar and can change anything in the sport.

"Equipment," he said. "That would be one thing I would do. I would fix the friggin' equipment."

The problem is this: The difference between what a pro can do with the latest club technology compared to what an amateur can do with it continues to grow wider. Unless golf's two ruling bodies can figure out a way to even things up (a standardized golf ball?), the pros will continue to make courses obsolete and create a bigger disconnect with the amateur players.

"The whole idea of the R&A and the USGA is to try to play the same equipment for the average golfer and the pro, and they couldn't be friggin' further apart," Nicklaus said.

"Golf is so popular simply because it is the best game in the world at which to be bad."

Thanks to reader John for this nice perspective by the WSJ's Tim Carroll, who weaved his Monday-Augusta lottery luck into a column about the democracy of golf:

My first three rounds of golf in 2007 couldn't be more different. One round was royally high-end, to say the least. Another was at a friend's respectable, but not lavish, home course. The third took place on what some might describe as a cow pasture -- but that might be an insult to cows.

I'll remember all three with affection -- the last maybe even more than the other two. That crystallizes for me something special about golf: It's a great leveler. It doesn't matter where you play or how good you are. Sometimes when you return home to see the parents and eat a Mom-made dinner, it can be just as wonderful as a meal made by a four-star chef; maybe even more so. This sport that some consider elitist can be about as democratic as it gets.

As A.A. Milne, the creator of Winnie the Pooh and an oft-quoted sage in my household, once wrote: "Golf is so popular simply because it is the best game in the world at which to be bad." A bad golfer can better his normal score by just a shot or two and be walking on air. Similarly, while it's a treat to play the name courses, sometimes an afternoon walking with a caddie down a perfectly manicured fairway isn't as fun as a casual evening carrying your own bag at a scruffy muni with your friends.

Emailing With Retief

James Corrigan e-interviews Retief Goosen and the chat is surprisingly engaging. Maybe Retief should conduct his post round Q&A's on a laptop in a chat room?

On the distance issue...

There is a growing argument about the ball travelling too far, turning courses into "pitch-and-putts" and forcing the authorities to lengthen and "trick up" layouts. What should be done about it?

People always go on about the equipment and the new balls, but I think 60 per cent of the reason for players hitting it so far is down to them being fitter and stronger. It's become an athlete's sport. It's not just sitting at the bar and going out to play any more; it's regular trips to the gym and protein milkshakes. No more beer. Even the caddies are working out. There's fitness trainers and physios everywhere. It's been an amazing transformation.

Only 60 percent? What about the 40 Retief!? 

I know which percentage is easier to change. 

"DVD of the 2007 Masters could, and should, be marketed as a 100% guaranteed cure for insomnia."

Sunday on The Scotsman's Scotland on Sunday's John Huggan notices a trend since 1997: majors gone awry. Seven "dodgy" majors to be exact. Which he revisits in detail.

Ever since the greatest golfer the world has seen annexed his first major title at Augusta in 1997 - blitzing the field by 12 strokes and wedging seemingly every approach on to what used to be distant greens - those in charge of the four most important events seem to have engaged in an unofficial contest to host the daftest Grand Slam event in history.

Unofficially at least, they call it "Tiger-proofing". I call it golf's so-called administrators attempting to disguise their incompetence over the shameful non-regulation of the modern ball.

You know I've suggested it many times, but Huggan gets the credit for actually coming out and saying it.

And bad news for the "so-called administrators." More and more people are making the connection between extreme setups and faulty equipment regulation. And that's before I they even hear me ramble on!

Most were consciously ruined in order to deflect attention away from the men who were 'asleep at the wheel', when they should have been paying closer attention to the dangerous and unlit technological road that golf was travelling. The rest were merely the playthings of those who take a one-dimensional delight in watching the best players suffer.

And so, golf at the very highest level is today too often a pedestrian and penal game designed to punish even the slightest indiscretion. Forget the spectacular and interesting prospect of watching a skilled practitioner attempt a risky recovery shot. They are long gone. Veer from the increasingly straight and narrow fairways, and the only option available is more than likely the chip back into play: penalty one stroke.

How tedious. Tennis anyone?

Separation of Church and Links?

Several writers have written about or noted Zach Johnson's faith in trying to find something interesting to say about the Masters Champion. Craig Dolch did it here and of course Dan Jenkins of all people celebrated it in his Golf Digest letter from Augusta.

Well Tom Witosky in the Des Moines Register files a thoughtful piece that starts out sounding like an extended version of the Zach-loves-Jesus theme, but then takes an intriguing turn by pointing out that there is only so much preaching some can take before it could backfire.

Johnson's mention of his Christian faith after winning the Masters on Easter Sunday has stirred discomfort among some believing the separation between church and sport should be as strong as between church and state.

"Religion and sport today has become a mutual exploitation society," said Ray Higgs, professor emeritus of English at East Tennessee State University.

At the same time, Johnson's profession sparked the imagination of those who believe sport and religion can be a positive, powerful combination.

And those who know Johnson, 31, say his faith is as much a part of him as is the ability to hit a five-iron within 10 feet of the cup.

"There is no pretense, no hidden agenda, no proselytizing" with Johnson, said Kay Bloom, his former theology teacher at Cedar Rapids Regis High School. "Ultimately, he is owning his faith and he simply shared it with everyone."

And...

"It is really a fine line and you have to be careful from a marketing point of view," said Rick Horrow, a nationally known expert on sports marketing and professional athletics.

"Zach Johnson genuinely has to be himself, and that includes his strong faith," Horrow said. "But he has to watch out that people don't think he is preaching to them."

Chapman Clark, a professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary in California, said Johnson and those surrounding him will have to adjust to that reality quickly.

"My suggestion is that he get himself some sharp people to help him develop his message so that it doesn't come across as exploitative," Clark said.

Paging the LPGA's brand coach!

Higgs, the East Tennessee State professor emeritus, has written several books and articles on religion and sport, including "God in the Stadium: Sports and Religion in America."

He believes the potential tension involved in tying religion to sport has grown as American culture fixated on sports success - as opposed to sports excellence. The emphasis on winning, he said, has turned people away from the value of athletics to focus on victory and money.

"The truth of the matter is there is no correlation between victory and virtue," Higgs said.

"When I see those guys working hard to make pars and bogeys, well, that's us"

Last week I asked if "relatable golf" would be the future direction the pro game takes to quench our society's unquenchable for all things narcissistic.

Well, Garry Smits found some fans who would agree that it's all about them while exploring the question of whether the year's other three majors (oh and The Players THE PLAYERS The PLAYERS) will be plodding bogeyfests.

When it comes to majors and The Players, fans seem to want to watch the best grind.

"We really enjoyed watching the Masters this year," said Kevin Leonard, a Cincinnati resident visiting the First Coast with his family to play golf at the TPC Sawgrass. "I don't like watching 27 under win a tournament."

His son, James, a college student, showed that feeling crosses generations.

"I know the Masters has been won on birdies and eagles on the back nine in the past," he said. "But I didn't miss that. It was fun knowing that they had to make pars to win."

Dennis James, a Green Cove Springs resident, said watching PGA Tour players fight enables the average golfer to relate.

"When I see those guys working hard to make pars and bogeys, well, that's us," he said. "Besides, majors are supposed to be hard."

It's all about ME!

Consider also that television ratings for the Masters were slightly higher than last year, when Mickelson won at 7 under.

Garry, let's not encourage the Ridley's and Driver's of the world. They're dangerous enough as it is!

Former PGA of America president M.G. Orender, a Jacksonville Beach resident, said competition committees can only go so far. Weather was the main reason for the high scores at Augusta, he said, not back-room suits bent on punishing players.

"I thought Augusta did the same thing the PGA does for our championship. It's a major. It should be tough, but you want the course to be fair, given the things you can control," Orender said. "Par is just a number. At the end of the day, if the course is fair, it doesn't matter what score wins."

Hmmm...and here I thought it was about identifying the best player!

The Future: Relatable Golf?

On the news that ratings were actually up for this hardly satisfying 2007 Masters, I've heard from a number of people that they argued with friends over the weekend about the setup and the joys of watching great players suffer.

There is a sizeable audience of the viewing public that enjoys watching the best players struggle. They like seeing them humiliated and brought down to a lower level of skill.

"They know how I feel now."

This mentality has been around a long time and many of the games lesser-informed writers have celebrated the notion of pro golfers serving as modern day gladiators served up for the people to devour in humiliating spectacles. 

So I'm wondering if championship golf is going to go the way of everything else in our society. Will it have to become "relatable" (as the marketing folks like to say) for big-time golf to succeed? In other words, will professional golfers eventually serve at the pleasure of the people, with major events played to publicly humiliate millionaire golfers on overcooked layouts in order to make the average man feel better about his lousy game?

Personally, I find it to be an incredibly selfish way to view golf. It's a lot more fun to see the talent of these great players exposed, celebrated and savored. But maybe that's old school?  Thoughts?

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.