NGF's Best Public Golf Cities

Reader/blogger Rob Matre points out that this Golf Magazine/National Golf Foundation ranking of the "10 Best Golf Cities" inexplicably left out one major city that many consider the best anywhere for public golf.

I'm sure it won't take long (after going through the clunky page view format the list is posted in) for some of you to nominate the glaring omission.

Update on 2007-11-26 14:54 by Geoff

Here's the full list of 50. I got a chuckle seeing L.A. at No. 11, a whopping 35 spots ahead of Chicago!

"I thought hitting the fairway was part and parcel of golf. Silly me."

Lawrence Donegan talks to Andrew Coltart about his struggles with distance and the flogging approach to course setup.

"When I played with Tiger he was a brilliant player but he was also very physically imposing, so I went away and tried to work on hitting the ball further. That was 1999. We're now in 2007 and I'm still trying to get more distance," he said. "If I don't try and hit the ball further, the way technology is going I'm going to be left way behind."

The truth is that Coltart, now 37, whose trip to tour school comes after his failure to make the top 115 in the 2007 European tour order of merit, may already have been left behind. Last year he was 181st in driving distance, hitting the ball 268 yards on average - a full 40 yards behind the longest hitters. In the Italian Open in the summer he had to play a five-wood shot into the green on seven of the first nine holes.

"How the hell can I get a five-wood shot close to the hole consistently? If I'd shot two under par I would have done really well - the winning score was 16 under par," he said sarcastically. "I don't want this to come over as bitterness but I feel technology has allowed guys to prosper who 15 years ago wouldn't have been able to make a penny. But because of technology and the way the courses are set up they are going to do really well.

"A guy might be able to dunt the ball 260 yards down the middle but that guy is constantly being outdone because the bigger hitter - the animal, for the want of a better expression - hits it 330 yards and it doesn't matter if he is in the rough because he has only got a wedge in his hands for his next shot. And the greens are saturated, so whatever he can lob up on to the green is just going to plug and stop somewhere near the flag.

"There is one statistic that is very curious to me - you have guys who are 150th in driving accuracy yet are 10th in greens in regulation. How can that be right? I thought hitting the fairway was part and parcel of golf. Silly me."

Interesting to note that he doesn't seem optimistic that a change in grooves will help him reverse his fortunes. 

"But while equipment advances are nominal at the pro level, there are still gains to be had by the rest of us choppers."

E. Michael Johnson belts out another howler of a Golf World equipment column with his jubilation at the news of driving distance going down. It's fascinating how his normally even-keeled weekly roundout of what guys have in the bag becomes so emotional on the subject of distance.

After listing the driving distance number, he reports this vital news:

Scoring also is stable.

Whew! That's a relief. Especially since the number is jigged around with more than...oh I better not say.

Though the scoring average of 70.83 marks the first time it has dipped below 71, over the last five years the average on the PGA Tour has been 71.03, and over the past 10 years 71.10. From 1988 to 1997 it was 71.17. So the last 10 years have seen an improvement of a quarter-stroke per four rounds over the previous 10. Hardly cause for concern.

Because after all it's such an unadjusted number!

I know, I know. Courses are longer, pins are in insane positions, etc., etc. So? Pro golf is not a game. It is a sport. As such, it should be difficult, and the achievements of those playing it for a living are far superior to those of us who don't. The only courses that need to be lengthened are the 55 used for PGA Tour events. Any other venue doing so is just wasting open space.

Oh that'll really happen. Can those PGA Tour courses bill the manufacturers for the expense incurred?

I didn't think so.

Hey, and now a word from our sponsors...

But while equipment advances are nominal at the pro level, there are still gains to be had by the rest of us choppers. How much? Find a launch monitor that not only spits out launch conditions, but also reveals the optimum given your current swing speed. Odds are there's more than 20 yards you're not getting. Isn't that the only statistic you should be interested in?

Shop 'til ya drop!

Requiem for a Country Club

Thanks to reader Steven T. for catching Rich Lerner's memories of Berkleigh Country Club, which recently closed and auctioned off plenty of memories.

I thought this was particularly interesting since I've recently heard of a number of clubs having serious trouble attracting new members.

Berkleigh was 81 years old. People die at 81, not lush golf courses with rich history. At 81 they get curvier and prettier. So many clubs, though, struggle now, desperate for members and families. Who has time, what with kids and jobs and the Internet and TIVO and 300 channels? Who goes to dinner dances anymore? Dressing up these days means Lucky Brand jeans with a Banana Republic t-shirt.

My generation had kids later in life. And either because we really wanted to be better dads or were driven through societal pressure, we went to Little League baseball games and soccer matches on Saturday mornings, joining the fitness craze and the $70-a-month gyms instead of country clubs.
 
Today, I travel more than 20 weeks a year and because of my job get more than enough invites to quality clubs to keep me satisfied. Most guys I know play a couple of times a month, maybe at a high-end daily fee or as a guest at a nice club. Many of us know at least a few of the generous and fortunate who belong to great places, those with gilded reputations that put them beyond the reach of economic downturns.

"That was when the "new breed" of business-savvy young pros, including Tiger Woods, began to recognize such moments as the branding opportunities they are..."

The Wall Street Journal's John Paul Newport pens an entertaining look at the hat-doffing trend in professional golf. I love the part about the LPGA Tour:

Henry Hughes, the PGA Tour's longtime chief of operations, pegs the increase in ritualized hat-doffing on the 18th green to 1998 or 1999. That was when the "new breed" of business-savvy young pros, including Tiger Woods, began to recognize such moments as the branding opportunities they are, and consequently transmitted the hat-doffing bug into the public bloodstream.

The 18th-green rituals on the LPGA Tour, incidentally, are much different. In large part that's because the relationship between hat and hair for women is more complex, which makes simple doffing more difficult. According to Ty Votaw, now an executive vice president at the PGA Tour but formerly the LPGA commissioner and still the husband of LPGA star Sophie Gustafson, the protocols work like this: Players who know and like each other hug, players who know each other but aren't especially fond "air hug," and players who didn't know each other before the round shake hands. Male caddies and players cheek-kiss.

Tough Look At The Golf Industry

Phil Kosin in Chicagoland Golf takes a tough look at the golf industry on news that course closing will outnumber openings for a third straight year.

 While data for 2007 has yet to be compiled, golf course closures nationwide are expected to outpace openings for the third straight year.

After nearly 20 years of strong growth, the nation’s total number of golf courses topped off in 2004 with 16,057. That represents an increase of 3,211 courses – about 25 percent – in 15 years.
   
Those 3,211 new courses represent this country’s second “Golf Boom” – the first coming during the 1920s when clubs and balls became affordable for everyone thanks to machinery that allowed for mass production. Previously, clubs were affordable only to “the privileged” because they were made one at a time by skilled craftsmen; while wound balls were being mass-produced, the market was small.

After the number peaked at 16,057, in 2005 the nation’s total golf course supply dwindled by five; last year, that number jumped to 62. Insiders are saying that number may be closer to 80 or more in 2007.

"I used to play exhibitions, and the club pro, because he knew the course, had a chance to beat me. There isn't anybody who is going to beat Tiger or Phil or these guys today."

Bill Dwyre talked to Jack Nicklaus during a stop in LA and instead of talking about the golf ball, he elaborated on the widening gap between the elite players and the merely good:

The message was that the game is worldwide, and retaining that popularity is why Nicklaus is concerned about one trend -- the widening gap between the average player and the touring pro. He said the pros can do more with the new equipment -- the longer balls and perimeter-weighted club heads -- and that separates them way too much from Mr. and Ms. 15 handicap.

"For years and years, they weren't that far apart," Nicklaus said. "Today, we've gone exactly the opposite of where we should go. Can you imagine playing against Tiger Woods today, the average club pro trying to compete with him?

"I used to play exhibitions, and the club pro, because he knew the course, had a chance to beat me. There isn't anybody who is going to beat Tiger or Phil or these guys today."

Nicklaus said the average golfer hits it farther now, but the pros hit it so much farther that it has become a different game. They hit it farther, but can control it. Most amateurs can't.

"We lose people when they hit the ball 330 yards and then they can't find it," he said. "If they hit it 230-240, they can find it and keep playing. It speeds up the game."

"Why would anyone bother trying to design a course for us?"

For those of you new readers who haven't followed the technology debate and its impact on the game, John Huggan offers a juicy primer that is also filled with some fresh quotes and thoughts for those of you who have tracked this key issue.

The other day, former US Open champion Geoff Ogilvy played a round with friends at the splendid Kingston Heath course in his home city of Melbourne. When they came to the 567-yard 14th hole, which was playing downwind, admittedly, Ogilvy hit a good drive... before striking a 7-iron approach through the green.

That's not a misprint. How long does a hole have to be before one of the game's leading exponents is unable to reach the putting surface with two full-blooded shots? Given that Ogilvy hit a drive and 7-iron around 575 yards, he was capable of reaching a green about 200 yards further on with his 3-wood.

Let's make the hole 800 yards in length, just to make him think a little. As the world No.11 asked companions rhetorically: "Why would anyone bother trying to design a course for us?"

Fast forward... 

"I don't pay too much attention to distance statistics, because most of my courses are not being built for the professionals," says leading designer Tom Doak. "But I try to stay abreast of what's going on, because the governing bodies don't!"

Wow, the Doakster finally speaking out forcefully! Better late than never.

And from Huggan: 

The typical response to this new breed of tour player has been predictably, and disappointingly, one-dimensional. Most courses have resorted to golf's most boring hazard - longer and thicker rough - and ever-increasing length, and in the process have destroyed any semblance of strategic choice for players who are supposed to be the best.

In other words, thinking and planning have largely been eliminated from the game at the highest level. On almost every hole there is but one choice of shot, with the creation of interesting angles for the approach something those old guys did before technology ran amok. It is tedious and heartbreaking to watch and, no doubt, to play.

The danger is that the average golf club committee will imagine that growing more and deeper rough and creating longer holes by way of more back tees offer the way forward for their course. Big mistake. That approach ignores the fact that the average golfer gains little or no advantage from modern technology. Largely starved of the club-head speed that is yardage's fuel, his drives have "stretched" by only a few measly yards. Besides, there is a better way.

"On most of the courses we work on, we put in back tees for the good player only on those holes where the green size is appropriate," says former European Tour player Mike Clayton, now a much-respected course designer. "We would not, for example, make a 310-yard hole 40 yards longer just because we could.

"In fact, par-70 is the answer to many tour course design questions. By reducing the par by two shots, you create two less vulnerable holes. Throw in a couple of great short par-4s and a short par-3, and it is possible to keep a course around 7,000 yards in length while still making it both difficult and thought-provoking for the professionals, and playable for the members without having tees they never go anywhere near."

Of course, all of that could be achieved by hauling the ball back 50 yards. Come on guys, get it done!

50? Shoot, I'll take 20 at this point. 

Has The USGA Got It's Groove Study Results Back?

...on the news that the PGA Tour is honing in on a drug testing program and penalties for violators.

Who would have ever thought, based on Commissioner Finchem's reluctance, that the PGA Tour would adopt a comprehensive policy and appear close to putting it in place before the USGA officially deemed U-grooves non-conforming or finished its golf ball study?

Things sure have been quiet on the groove front considering the USGA first announced this in February.

Might the R&A be getting cold feet? Has a manufacturer (other than the Ping dudes) threaten to sue after reading the USGA's documentation? Or did all of the manufacturers actually use their brains and realize that what seemed like a fun idea (new irons and wedges for everyone!) was actually setting a disastrous precedent by rolling back equipment and opening the door for the end-of-the-world scenario: a ball rollback?

Thoughts? 

Knockdown Shots...CBSSports.com Edition

Steve Elling's much missed "Knockdown Shots" column is back...

A Genuine First Tee Facility

While Kirk Semple's New York Times piece on the Kabul Golf Course and passionate proprietor Mohammad Afzal Abdul makes for a fine read, you absolutely must not miss the video feature that Semple narrates to bring his piece alive.

It's almost 8 minutes long, but well worth your time. Abdul is my new hero.

"During one day of play, every player fixed at least one ball mark within 10 feet of the fourth hole -- but only three players actually struck the green within 10 feet of the hole."

The Wall Street Journal's Timothy Carroll looks at the latest divot tools that aim to improve conditions, and offers this fun little anecdote:

But is the design of the tool really the only reason so many greens are full of ball marks? Let's talk about the laziness of the "toolee." Etiquette calls for golfers to fix their ball marks, but every time I play, it's obvious that people fail to do so. Mr. Carroll says he's noticed that some people at high-end clubs believe that for their six-figure initiation fees, someone else should repair the marks for them.

Ball marks, one of the few things that golfers are allowed to fix on the green, can be controversial for other reasons, too. A senior USGA rules official recently told me a story from the Masters a few years ago. During one day of play, every player fixed at least one ball mark within 10 feet of the fourth hole -- but only three players actually struck the green within 10 feet of the hole. Were they all fixing old ball marks, or were they trying to correct other blemishes that they're not supposed to be messing with, like scuff marks from a shoe or indentations left by a player leaning on his putter? "Who knows?" he says.

"The sport that already lost complete control of the equipment manufacturers who have juiced the tools and taken a certain element of skill out of the game is now trying to regulate what its performers put into their bodies."

Scott Michaux in the Augusta Chronicle is the first major columnist to note that we have equipment on steroids and golf is opening up a major can of worms with drug testing first. He doesn't quite go all the way and ask why the folks in charge aren't taking a look at equipment in conjunction with the drug testing, or perhaps asking if they may be encouraging performance enhancing drug use by attributing distance gains to athleticism, but he still earns big points for at least noting that it got away from certain governing bodies.

In short, golf was forced to act like every other sport in the modern era.

One simple question - why?

It doesn't make much sense. The sport that already lost complete control of the equipment manufacturers who have juiced the tools and taken a certain element of skill out of the game is now trying to regulate what its performers put into their bodies.

If this was just about illegal steroids, it would be understandable. The whole idea of creating artificial strength - at a potential cost to personal health - is unseemly. Since other sports are failing every day to try to regulate that brand of performance enhancers, why not join the club for appearances sake.

But golf is stepping into an even murkier realm trying to regulate drugs that decrease heart rate, sharpen attention or increase stamina - basically all the things the pharmaceutical companies have trained us to do in our everyday lives. This is where the whole system leaves the rails.

CEO Musical Chairs

Steve Mona is leaving the GCSAA to run the World Golf Federation and join the growing list of those in line to take on Tim Finchem's massive salary when the Commish finally decides to spend more time with his family. Meanwhile, David Fay will be the first "CEO" to head the World Golf Federation board and all of it makes for great Presidents Cup cocktail party talk.

And so nice to see Peter Dawson sounding like he just got his MBA:

"The World Golf Foundation is providing a platform to establish an open line of communication that is critical to effectuating meaningful change on a global basis," Dawson said. "It is important that the international golf community come together in a strategic manner to address issues that affect us all and the sport we love."

Except that annoying distance issue. 

"So why, oh, why, did I start now?"

Thanks to reader Lara for passing along Emily Yoffe's entertaining Slate.com piece on taking up golf. Usually these types of essays aren't particularly original, by Yoffe brings a fresh perspective to the table.

During my brief immersion in the world of golf, I determined that gloom is an essential golf component, as befitting a game that started on the moody moors of Scotland. When tennis players get thoroughly beaten, they come off the court sweaty and smiling. Their endorphins have shot up, and they look cute in their outfits. Even skiers being carried off the slope on a stretcher seem bizarrely thrilled about the elemental encounter between body and mountain. But golf induces despair. Take the observations in the book The Bluffer's Guide to Golf, by Peter Gammond, "The golfer [is] a miserable wretch at the best of times." "A golf match is designed to make as many people as possible unhappy." There are very few golf jokes, he writes, that do not mention "death and destruction."