"‘What we’re trying to do, like all other championship courses, is modernize it and fit it to today’s golfers"

Chay Rao looks at TPC Avenel's pending renovation and featured this from course superintendent Chad Adcock.

‘‘It will be a much better layout,” Adcock said. ‘‘I know that Tiger said that he would like to stay at Congressional, but if they can’t host the [AT&T National] in ’09 and ’11, and they look for another venue, we would like to be that venue.

‘‘I know that the membership here was proud of their Tour stop, and was disappointed to lose it,” he said. ‘‘They want it back.”

One of the major changes to the course will be to its ability to handle extreme weather.

‘‘We are going to restore Rock Run Stream [which runs through the course] to the size and status that it had a few hundred years ago,” Adcock said. ‘‘We are also going to add about 12 to 14 acres of wetlands, so that the course can handle the once-in-a-generation storm, like the one we had last year.”

The PGA Tour has set aside $20 million to make extensive changes to a course that has received poor reviews from several PGA Tour players since it opened in 1987. The Booz Allen Classic — once known as the Kemper Open and FBR Capital Classic for a year — was held at Avenel annually from 1987 to 2006 with the exception of 2005.

Due to the lack of enthusiasm, Avenel’s signature event, the Booz Allen Classic, failed each year to draw many of the top players in golf. That lack of star power was one of the contributing factors to the tournament’s demise.

‘‘The game changed considerably over the last 20 years,” Dennis Ingram, the former superintendent at Avenel told The Gazette last year. ‘‘The landing areas, as they were designed to be, are basically obsolete. ... It becomes an unfair advantage for longer players versus the normal players.

‘‘What we’re trying to do, like all other championship courses, is modernize it and fit it to today’s golfers,” he said.

$20 million in part because these guys had to go and be better athletes! Glad that steroid testing will be starting soon.

"How can you be enthusiastic when you play 30-35 tournaments a year, hitting balls all the time, unless you're a robot?"

Thanks to reader Phil for this Tony Jimenez authored piece documenting a lovely rant from Tony Jacklin about today's pros in light of Angel Cabrera's U.S. Open win.

"All this fantastic technology that's around, all these psychologists and swing gurus, and here is a guy coming out on top who smokes cigarettes and smashes the ball a mile."

Jacklin offered up the Oakmont triumph of the portly Cabrera as proof that simplicity is the key to success.

"I hope some of these young golfers, although I'm not talking about the smoking now, can take something from this and realise the whole business (of golf) is being fed by all this rubbish," said the 62-year-old.

"There is so much information out there these days, so many people on the periphery of the game trying to get heard, trying to make a living.

"There is nothing wrong with trying to make a living from the game but golf is a simple game. The core of it is not complicated."

Oh come on Tony, life wouldn't be as fun if we didn't have Butch and Rick and agents and managers and personal Pilates instructors. 

"I was fortunate to play with Gene Sarazen, Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan and they all learned by watching other golfers," said the Englishman.

"They questioned some things, for sure, but now they are given so much information, there are many opportunities for young people to go in the wrong direction.

"They (on the periphery) are all salesmen, all trying to sell you their story, their method, their thing.

But thankfully we know that players will never try to sell us something masquerading as golf course architects!

"It's pure and simple, coming into the last nine holes of a major championship you must believe you can do it," he said.

"Not who your coach is, or whether you swing the club this way, or that. It's about getting the job done."

What about a little Adderall, you know, for the pain?

Jacklin, who captained Europe's Ryder Cup team four times, said South African Gary Player was the perfect example of a player who achieved greatness largely because of his mental strength.

And here I thought it was the situps and the black mock turtlenecks.

"A lot of these kids are burned out by 18," he said. "They have heard so much rubbish, they get bored with it.

"Jack (Nicklaus) said to me a year ago, 'if I was out here now, I'd get bored with it'. Jack used to play for two weeks, go off and do different things and then come back refreshed and able to focus on his game with enthusiasm.

"How can you be enthusiastic when you play 30-35 tournaments a year, hitting balls all the time, unless you're a robot?"

Oh I can think of million$ and million$ of reasons to be enthusiastic. 

Mac Agrees With USGA: The Grooves Must Go!

The USGA Executive Committee will be comforted to know that Mac O'Grady wholeheartedly agrees that V-grooves must be returned to stop the flogging we've seen a recent majors.

The Detroit News' Krysten Oliphant turned on her tape recorder and let Mac do this thing after Monday's Buick Open qualifying. First, on Tiger's driving and grooves.

"When Nicklaus and Palmer played, when (Ben) Hogan played and Sam Snead played, on a scale of zero to 10, they were a nine-plus," he said. "Tiger Woods is not even a one-plus."

O'Grady said technology is the reason for players' success today. A change in the drivers' grooves from a V shape to a box shape allows golfers to hit the ball farther with more spin.

When in the rough, players go straight for the hole instead of just trying to reach the green. This, he said, has ruined golf.

"The reason why (Woods) can hit it on the green is because he has square grooves," he said.

"He doesn't have that, he's dead. He cannot do it -- it's impossible. For him to go after Nicklaus' records is cheating. This is like steroids."

Mac, do you really think that Tiger would have approached Augusta or Oakmont differently this year had his grooves been V-shaped? Maybe he wisely lays up on 15 at Augusta Sunday(he was in the second cut, right?)? Maybe.

Anyway, Mac then talks about the ball.

"Balls used to have what he called a concentric arc dimple configuration, meaning their indentions were in a circular shape and each dimple was the same size, allowing for even dispersion of air across them. Now dimple sizes and positions vary, eliminating the balls' curve.

"It allows all these guys to come into the game that ordinarily couldn't do it," O'Grady said.

"This ball is designed for the 30-handicap. It's not designed for the pro tour. The 30-handicapper hits the ball and it goes up to the apex, it comes down straight. It doesn't slice. So when the Tour pro gets it, it's robbery. It's not fair."

And he'll be glad to know he shares this opinion with his good buddy, Deane Beman:

He said there should be a special ball for PGA Tour players with the concentric arc dimple pattern, which he said showed who had natural ability and who did not.

"The degree of athleticism has changed," he wrote in notes he took during qualifying. "What was humanly impossible is now technologically possible."

Come admit it, no matter what you think of Mac, you have to love his honesty...

"I still love the game," he said.

"I don't enjoy the technology because what's happening is these kids now are shooting 63s, 62s. What Michelle Wie is doing is not humanly possible. It's technologically possible because the balls go too straight, they go too far."

O'Grady said in the Champions Tour, what he called former "powderpuff" players such as Jay Haas, are defeating "dinosaur guys who had the best technique."

"All those big players, they can't say anything because they're being paid by the manufacturers (for sponsorship). But they know it's wrong. This is the worst dark chapter in the history of professional golf with this technology.

"Steroids (are) not in the athletes today -- (they're) in the balls and the drivers. Guys don't have to hit it far. The equipment is going to do it for them."

"It’s been made worse by technologically advanced golf equipment that makes golf balls go farther — and farther sideway"

The New York Times' Bill Pennington officially becomes a member of the technophobic, liberal biased, anti-corporate bottom line agenda writers of America with this (front page!) piece on increased safety issues at golf course residential communities.

 The intersection of errant golf shots and private property is not a new phenomenon. But with new gear that enables average golfers to hit a ball 250 yards, and with golf communities sprouting nationwide — 70 percent of new courses include housing — it is becoming an increasingly prominent problem. Most homes built near this country’s 16,000 golf courses may not be in the cross hairs of slicing duffers, but thousands are.

“It’s not only an ongoing problem, it’s been made worse by technologically advanced golf equipment that makes golf balls go farther — and farther sideways,” said David Mulvihill, a managing director at the Urban Land Institute, who has studied golf course development.

“So homes that have been on a golf course for decades without incident are suddenly in the path of guys whacking giant-headed drivers. The golf course designers are trying to adjust with wider fairway corridors, but because of liability issues, no one is willing to put on paper what the acceptable setbacks are.”

But don't worry, with V-grooves on the way, all will be well! 

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?