"There is no doubt that getting a good drive away with a modern driver is easier than it was with an older driver. That’s a fact."

Reader GuttaPercha raises a great point on the post parsing Peter Dawson's comments to John Huggan.

I am confused.

"...there is no doubt that getting a good drive away with a modern driver is easier than it was with an older driver. That’s a fact."

If that's so, how come every second sentence I read is saying that pros don't have to be accurate any more (better grooves, lack of strategic challenge in course set up, penal rough anyway, etc)? Just bomb and gouge, etc.

If it's easier to hit a modern driver, but at the same time we're seeing lesser percentages of fairways hit (or whatever the best indicator is), then what is going on?

So far, the various papers and administrator comments on the impact of U-grooves have ignored any significant discussion of fairway widths as possibly impacting driving accuracy. I suppose it does get in the way of the USGA/R&A's argument, but as GuttaPercha notes, the governing bod's might want to resist the temptation to suggest the modern driver is having the most significant impact on skill or distance, and then lamenting the decline in driving accuracy.

"These kids now, they grow up playing big drivers. The ball doesn't move. They don't have the gear effect in the drivers like they used to."

A couple highlights from Tiger's sitdown in the Torrey Pines media center on the eve of the 2008 Buick Invitational. Starting with this question about the possibility of playing the Northern Trust Open at Riviera:

TIGER WOODS: Yeah, LA is still kind of up in the air. I've always loved playing Riviera. I've only played well I think two times. But hey, hopefully one year I'll be able to get it under my belt.

Just not this year!

And this on shotmaking, from a Craig Dolch question. Love the "These kids now" talk...

Q. You're known as one of the better shot-makers out here, which seems to be somewhat of a dying breed on TOUR. Can you talk a little bit about shot-making and why you think so few guys aren't good shot-makers and just pound the ball now?

TIGER WOODS: Well, I think the guys don't -- they didn't grow up with the ball moving all that much. I was still on -- when I grew up playing I was on that periphery of persimmon and balata balls, so the ball moved quite a bit.

These kids now, they grow up playing big drivers. The ball doesn't move. They don't have the gear effect in the drivers like they used to. A lot of big changes.

The golf courses have changed, as well. So the game is played totally different now than it used to be. So yeah, you have to make the adjustments.

What year did Vijay have that great year, four years ago? He proved just hitting driver on every hole was the best way to attack golf courses. If you're driving it well, great. If you're not, you're going to have a wedge in your hand. That's not the way the older players used to do it. They used to shape it, move it around the golf course and go about their business that way.

"If you want to mess with these guys you've got to create options."

I missed Mark O'Meara's sit-down with the assembled scribes at Torrey Pines today, but loved this from the transcript:

 Q. A lot has changed in the last ten years. It's become a power game now. Do you wish that you could go back or guys could learn maneuvering the ball, hitting the ball different directions? It's kind of a lost art out here.

MARK O'MEARA: It is. That's why it's kind of fun certainly to watch what Tiger has done, the way -- he has the power; that's not an issue. But the cool thing about Tiger Woods is he can hit an 8-iron 87 yards if he wants to. I think a lot of the other young players that are brought up in this modern era of power and distance, you have to hit the ball far to really compete nowadays. The creativity standpoint, that's kind of gone away, the fact that the equipment and the ball don't curve as much.

Would I like to see that change? As long as the equipment is legal, I have no problem with it. But I do agree with that. I think when I play with a player that plays some creative shots, that impresses me more than just somebody who's powerful and beats away.

You know, the conditions have kind of led into that. Everybody talks about how far everybody is hitting, and they think that's ruining the game. So they think, okay, to fix that we're just going to make the golf courses longer. But I'm not so sure that really fixes it because when you look at the game and you look at some of the most creative holes or the most talked-about holes in golf are usually the shortest ones. So it's kind of ironic that, okay, you can go play a 497- to 512-yard par-4, but it's pretty much bombs away.

Okay, the guys who are powerful are going to have a huge advantage over the average length players, and power players should have somewhat of an advantage. But I think if you want to mess with these guys you've got to create options. You've got to force them to think a little bit. There's more fear on a player's face when he's standing on the 12th tee at Augusta than there might be standing on the 12th tee at the South Course at Torrey Pines.

"I'm hitting it further with less clubhead speed."

Golf Channel did a nice segment during final round Bob Hope coverage where they asked Kenny Perry about changes he's seen during his long and successful career. Here's the text and the video for those who would like to insist the guys are just working out more!

I have seen a lot of changes. I led the tour I guess in '91 in driving distance, I averaged 291. And now Bubba's hitting it 350-360-whatever. It's funny, the clubhead speed I had, I had probably 4-5 mph hour less now clubhead speed I know for sure  than I did in 91. and actually I'm averaging 300, 299, so I'm hitting it further with less clubhead speed. So it tells me between golf ball technology, clubhead, driver, shafts, total package, we've got higher launch less spin on the golf ball, so the golf all just goes a long way now.

"The golf industry can lay claim to being a bigger American business than the motion-picture industry, newspaper publishing and the combined performing arts and other spectator sports."

Steve Elling reports on the seminar joined by Steve Mona, David Fay, Joe Steranka and Tim Finchem at the PGA Show to trot out some pretty wild numbers:

Orlando or not, the numbers sound like Disney fiction: The industry generates $76 billion annually in direct economic impact and can claim approximately 2 million jobs with a wage impact of $61 billion nationally.

The stage could not have been better to relay the splashy message. The PGA expo this year features 1 million feet of exhibit space and will draw an estimated 45,000 spectators for the week. So, from that standpoint, officials such as Mona and PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem, who helped present the new data, were preaching to the choir.

The research was conducted by SRI International, which used federal government models to arrive at its estimates. This marked the second time the sport commissioned an economic study, and despite a broad slump in the sport's growth rate since the survey was conducted five years ago, the numbers have jumped markedly from the initial figure of $62 million.

And...

"We want to be able to quantify how big our industry has become," Mona said.

The primary indices used to measure the impact were from greens fee revenues, tourism, real-estate developments linked to golf, equipment sales, plus other money generated by courses (food, weddings, dances) and the like.

Don't forget Batmitzvahs...

"Golf generates more money than any other sport in the world that we know of," Mona said.

Now, wait a sec here. Don't people bet a fair amount on the NFL?

Update on 2008-01-18 06:48 by Geoff

The PGA Tour release says:

St. Augustine, FL, January 17, 2008 – A comprehensive new study, commissioned by the World Golf Foundation’s GOLF 20/20 initiative, has determined that golf in the United States generated $76 billion in direct economic impact in 2005, up significantly from $62 billion five years ago. The study, the 2005 Golf Economy Report, was conducted by SRI International. It was designed by the leadership of GOLF 20/20 as an update to a similar SRI study that measured the U.S. golf economy in 2000.

In addition to golf’s direct revenues, the 2005 Golf Economy Report presents for the first time the direct, indirect, induced and total economic impact of golf on the U.S. economy.  The report indicates that golf generated a total economic impact of $195 billion in 2005, creating approximately 2 million jobs with wage income of $61 billion.

"When the ball actually does something when it hits the ground -- when it rolls a bit after it lands -- that's when shotmaking matters."

Geoff Ogilvy's contention in his chat with Jaime Diaz is that shotmaking is dead in large part not because of grooves or architecture or the ball, but because greens are too soft.

"The truth is that hitting it high and straight, with the equipment we have now and on the turf conditions we play, is the simplest option," he says. "It gives you less to think about, and sometimes on the golf course, thinking about less is good.

"But the big thing is that the reward for hitting the proper shot -- on a regular tour course -- is just not as great anymore. Off the tee you just look down the fairway and hit it, because it really doesn't matter where the ball ends up as long as it's in relatively short grass. Coming into the soft green, when the ball stops easily and it doesn't matter what side you miss it on, all of a sudden the perfectly shaped shot loses its relevance and becomes not worth the effort." 

And...

"Especially at Augusta and the British Open, golf courses with really firm greens where it's really bad to miss it on the short side of the pin, that's when the reward for shaping is much greater. When the ball actually does something when it hits the ground -- when it rolls a bit after it lands -- that's when shotmaking matters."

Okay, here's a hypothetical I've been wanting to float for some time.

What if a course, in a quest to present firm greens for a championship, were to cover their greens at night the way a baseball crew covers the infield during a rain delay?

Is this an artificial intrusion, or simply a clumsier method of doing what the Sub-Air systems accomplish at courses with the system installed? 

"Week to week on the PGA Tour, the setup on pristinely conditioned layouts doesn't encourage imaginative shotmaking."

There was one component of Nick Seitz's Golf World story on shotmaking that I would love to have read more about:

Course architects have responded to the different game current equipment has imposed mostly by building longer courses and moving tees back, often against their better judgment. Week to week on the PGA Tour, the setup on pristinely conditioned layouts doesn't encourage imaginative shotmaking. The majors can present a more rigorous test. Some fans find the new-look tour more entertaining, some find it less fulfilling. Long drives impress people, but so do daring trouble shots. The best players always want stronger setups, but the tour operates largely for the benefit of the majority of its membership, with a watchful eye on its TV ratings.

I'm not entirely sure what he means by the last sentence since "stronger setups" usually translates to confining, but it would seem simple to blame PGA Tour course setup for the lack of shotmaking. However, even as much rough harvesting and narrowing of playing corridors that goes on these days, I would lean toward PGA Tour course architecture quite often not allowing for the players to demonstrate their skills.

Outside of Kapalua, or at least Kapalua when it's firmer, how many courses on the PGA Tour actually allow for big sweeping run-up shots or imaginative shot shaping plays off of contours to get a ball close to the hole?

Now, Geoff Ogilvy would argue that soft greens play a role in diminishing shotmaking, as he did in this Jaime Diaz piece, but even when firm and fast at least half the courses on the PGA Tour contain virtually no shotmaking interest whatsoever.

In other words, architecture has let the game down as much as course setup or unregulated technology.

Of course, why I obsess over this is pointless when Golf Channel's Adam Barr has the answer. Break out the credit card! In this story of "game improvement" clubs (translation: stuff for hacks), he quotes Scott Rice of Cobra, who has the cure:

“But there is a middle ground for skilled players who want more forgiveness than a traditional forged blade, but still want to be able to work the ball. Cobra’s Carbon CB iron is one example of this middle ground. The head is slightly larger than a traditional blade and more mass is moved out to the perimeter of the head for more forgiveness, but it is still a very workable iron. Cobra’s FP iron is another example of an iron design targeted at the better player; it has a larger head and a wider sole than the Carbon CB for even more forgiveness, but the sole design features a chamfer on the back edge which allows the club to have workability characteristics of a narrower sole.”

"How much fun would that be to watch? And to play?"

Golfweek's Brad Klein thought the NHL's (highly rated) outdoor game in Buffalo was going to be lame, but then he wonders why it can't be done in golf.

So if hockey can pull this off, why not golf? What better game for evoking youthful memories and feelings – of school-house swings, piecemealed equipment, and of a dreamy, pastoral playing field.

How about the PGA Tour putting together a “Summer Classic” tournament?

Players use older, wooden-headed drivers and “woods,” plus forged, not cast, irons and wound, balata golf balls – the kind that anyone who is 30-plus years old today grew up learning the game with. Forget caddies. Players carry their own golf bags. No yardage books or pin sheets. Golfers eyeball everything and improvise their shots. Leave the bunkers rakes in the maintenance shed. Mow the greens so they actually putt at different speeds.

How much fun would that be to watch? And to play?

The NHL’s “Winter Classic” was a success in every possible regard. And no surprise, despite (or was it because of?) the rough conditions, the game’s premier player, the Penguins’ Sid Crosby, not only displayed his amazing puck handling skills but also scored the winning goal. To their credit, the NHL’s administration even bent the rules slightly in the name of equity by stopping play midway through the third period and overtime to allow the teams to switch sides, lest either one gain an undue advantage from the elements.

That, to me, showed a lot of imagination. Don’t let rules nerds ruin the game in the name of some abstract lawyerly adherence when what counts is the spirit of the sport. With a little imagination and guts, golf, too, can go back to its traditions. It might be the best way of showcasing itself.

You may recall I asked Tiger Woods about this in December and he thought it would be "fun."  

Let's consider the obstacles here.

I could see players passing because their equipment suppliers say no or simply because they don't want to be embarrassed. Otherwise, what do you see as potential stumbling blocks for such an event?

I could envision a scenario where Tiger passes such an event early or mid-season for the reason he now skips Kapalua, Pebble Beach and Riviera (messes up his stroke). But after stating how fun he finds this kind of golf, and after telling Jaime Diaz that if he ruled the game the boys would be playing persimmon and balata, he'd have a hard time saying now to such an event in the silly season without looking foolish.

Other obstacles?  

"Playing it for free, he won twice."

Okay, next point from Nick Seitz's excellent Golf World story on shotmaking. The ball. The one that's harder to move.

"In some ways the old ball was better," says Johnny Miller. "It spun more, so you could get to just about any flag. The irons today are weighted at the bottom to get the ball up, but you can't put sidespin on it."

Steve Flesch concurs. He dropped his ball-endorsement deal for the '07 season after going winless since 2004, experimenting with different models until he found a Srixon ball that suited his control game better. Playing it for free, he won twice.

And... 

Butch Harmon, who coaches Mickelson and Flesch among a flock of tour pros, says, "The young players today don't see an image of turning the ball around doglegs, and the equipment doesn't allow you to do it. The kids are stronger and have sounder swings, and they only see way up high -- they go over everything. It's a power game. You couldn't do that with the old equipment."

Obviously, fans are being cheated by not seeing as much in the way of interesting shotmaking and ball movement. Well, maybe someone stands behind a tee to study the height of tee shots. I don't.

But are today's elite players doing themselves a disservice playing balls sold commercially?

The Shape of Shotmaking, Vol. 1

I'm not really sure where to start with Nick Seitz's compelling look at the state of shotmaking in Golf World's season preview because there are so many points worth noting (and I haven't even gotten to Jaime Diaz's companion chat with Geoff Ogilvy yet, but can't wait.)

The first thought is this: consider how much has changed and the depth of reporting looking at the impact of these changes.

In May 2005 I sat down for an SI Golf Plus roundtable that included Brad Faxon, David Fay and Larry Dorman. They essentially teamed up to tell me that shotmaking was alive and well, the game was more interesting than ever, etc...

Anyway if you go back and read it you realize how absurd they probably sound to a majority of golf fans just two years later, which speaks volumes about how perceptions of the game have changed in a short time.

Which brings us to the Seitz piece, where the overwhelming number of folks quoted blame the golf ball above all else (we'll touch on the club, instruction and architecture blame later).

So here's the first item that leaps off the page: 

Such is his upbringing and talent level, Tiger Woods can pitch a tent in both the traditional and new-age camps, but he laments the decline in more resourceful play. "Most of today's young players never had to work the ball growing up because they were more concerned about distance," he says. "Shotmaking has changed because of the balls. They're harder to work. They go straighter."

If balata balls and persimmon heads were still in play, Woods might well win even more. "Any time a player understands how to shape a golf ball and can consistently hit the ball flush, you're going to want the ball to move more and the equipment to be less forgiving," Woods says. "It puts a premium on quality."

Tiger's custom golf balls, a version of the Nike One Platinum not available in the marketplace, spin more and are easier to maneuver. "They're the spinniest on tour," he says, showing he can coin words as well as craft shots. He doesn't mind giving up a little yardage off the tee to gain accuracy into the greens. Of course, he still averages 300 yards per drive (302.4 yards, 12th on tour in 2007, to be exact).

Now, the USGA and R&A have been running around in circles to figure out ways to restore the importance of skill and shotmaking in the game without touching the ball because the tie between PGA Tour play and average golfer consumption of products the pros play is the most holy of synergies.

Yet here have Tiger not even playing the ball they sell. The only synergy is brand-related, not product related.

I find this odd on many levels. Besides the fact it's another example that the all-vital connection between the pro and amateur games that we are told must be preserved (and which we learn more and more does not actually exist), from a business perspective it just amazes me that this ball is not for sale.

How Did We Get To This Point?

Alistair Tait is fed up and can't take it anymore. I love a good rant!

"Fairways are much tighter…and this is further evidenced by the fact that Fred Funk -- who is the benchmark for fairways -- is down in accuracy about 6 percent"

Bob Harig catches up with Hank Haney, who makes a long overdue point about Tiger's driving and the accuracy decline of other top players.

And the easy place to look was at Woods' driving accuracy, which had dropped from over 70 percent in 2000 to under 60 percent this year -- with varying degrees of difficulty in hitting fairways during that time.

"Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare Tiger to the other players?'' said Haney, who pointed out that most players have lost accuracy over the past five years.

Among the reasons Haney cites are the fact that players are hitting the ball farther, fairways are tighter, they are using more drivers off the tee in an attempt to overpower courses and they are using drivers with longer shafts (45 inches now, compared to 43).

"Simple geometry says that even a driver that averages one yard farther will miss more fairways,'' he said. "And Tiger is much longer" -- 293.3 yards in 2002 versus 302.4 yards in 2007 -- "than he was.

"Fairways are much tighter … and this is further evidenced by the fact that Fred Funk -- who is the benchmark for fairways -- is down in accuracy about 6 percent, despite the fact that he has lost distance since 2002.''

Remember, those in favor of grooves regulation suggest these guys thump away at the ball because they have grooves, yet have never mentioned that the decrease in accuracy could also be influenced by narrowing fairway widths.

"The world's best player charges $4 million to drive through the gate."

Trevor Grant treads thoughtfully through the minefield better known as taking on the issue of excessive purses and apperance fees while considering the impact on golf.

Of course, this boundless gluttony has repercussions for those who don't get to sit at the big table.

Last month, after the announcement of a new European Tour event in Dubai, worth a staggering $11 million, US Tour boss Tim Finchem described it as terrific for golf globally.

However, it's hard to see the benefits in this corner of the globe as the Australian golf tour hangs on for dear life, threatened by a tsunami of cash for tournaments in the Middle East and China.

All manner of tactics have been employed to try to prevent Australian golf's plunge towards global irrelevance.

The organisers of the Australian Open, being played this week at The Australian in Sydney, have followed the money trail to New South Wales, where the State Government has agreed to back the event until 2009.

Thus, the national Open has become Sydney-centric, and now ignores one of the best assets in Australian golf - the Melbourne sandbelt.

By 2009 the Open would have been played in this world-acclaimed golf mecca just twice in 12 years - at Kingston Heath in 2000 and Victoria in 2002.

Australia's most significant course, Royal Melbourne, has not hosted the most prestigious event in the country for 16 years.

It's much the same as the British Open ignoring St Andrews, and a sad indictment on the priorities in golf in this country.

Firmly ensconced in Sydney, the Open's priority is said to be the signing of Woods to play next year.

Sources say the pursuit of Woods has the backing of the NSW Government, which wants to make an impact after losing out to its Victorian counterpart in the bid for the 2011 Presidents Cup.

It sounds great for the game here. Except for one thing.

The world's best player charges $4 million to drive through the gate.

The last time he did so in this part of the world, at the NZ Open in 2002, the tournament was a financial disaster.

"You just don't even want to pull your normal driver out when you can play like this."

Mike Clayton writes about a Royal Melbourne round with Geoff Ogilvy using hickory shafted clubs

Ogilvy had never hit a wooden shaft but he had a couple of hits and concluded that "my body will tell me how to hit it".

It took him no time to adjust to the feel of the shaft and after a few holes he said "you just don't even want to pull your normal driver out when you can play like this".

Manufacturers have made fortunes mass-producing quality metal drivers and they have unquestionably made the game easier for the average player. Mishits are more than kindly treated by the big heads but off-centre hits with a small-headed wood with a hickory shaft are not pretty.

Ogilvy barely missed the middle of the two wood's clubface and anyone watching would have been astounded how far he drove the ball. Into the strong south wind off the eighth tee he covered 230 metres and down wind off the next he was right at the 270-metre mark. At the long par-four 11th he lost one high and right on the wind and had to hit a three-wood from there but that was about the only bad one he hit. At the par-five 12th and 15th he easily reached the greens with seven-iron second shots and at the final hole ripped the hickory over the corner of the dogleg and hit a wedge onto the green.

There was nothing revolutionary about our conclusions as we walked off the 18th. That RM played so short for a great player using a hickory shaft backed up what MacKenzie said all those years ago. The custodians of the game need to control the ball because RM, like most of our wonderful suburban courses, has no more land.

"From the 1997 Open to the 2005 Booz Allen Classic, when you used the Shot Link, the players hit it 49 yards longer over that period."

Larry Bohannan talks to Rees Jones about all things Rees. On Torrey Pines:

Not everyone is going to like the course. The ones who don't play as well won't like it as much," Jones said. "I think in the case of Torrey Pines, the players are going to be enthralled by it."

Specifically, Jones said the players should like the Open greens at Torrey Pines far more than the Opens in recent years.

"(Torrey Pines) doesn't have the pitch to the greens like Oakmont did (this year)," Jones said. "So if you get above the hole you really get a chance to make the putt a little bit more."

This next part really speaks to why we need drug testing since we know this is all thanks to the extra lifting:

Jones said in his research and work on renovating the courses for Opens and PGA Championships, his understanding grows of how good top professional players have become.

"We did Congressional over for 1997 (the Open), and now we are having to add a lot of tees for 2011," Jones said. "Atlanta Athletic Club, we did for the 2001 PGA. For 2011 we had to push the bunkers out, re-bunker the course and add length."

Jones says statistics back up the need for stretching golf courses out for major championships.

"From the 1997 Open (at Congressional) to the 2005 Booz Allen Classic, when you used the Shot Link (measuring system), the players hit it 49 yards longer over that period," Jones said. "In championship golf, we had to upgrade the golf course. We just took Oakland Hills back 350 yards. And now it is a challenge for these guys."

I found this odd: 

Scores are almost guaranteed to be more under par at Torrey Pines than at other recent Open courses, but for a reason Jones himself discounts.

"They are going to play it a par-71 at Torrey. The last couple of years it has been a par-70," Jones said.

Now, according to my PGA Tour media guide, they've always played Torrey at par-72. Eh, minor details!

"So it will be a chance to be more under par, which doesn't mean much.

Much.

"Still, the greens at Torrey are challenging. There can be this little terrace in the back that can be hard to access because they spin the ball so much."

Having the high-profile nickname of the Open Doctor and having his work critiqued and criticized by the game's best players isn't a burden, Jones believes.

"It's very beneficial. I've got three of the next four Opens, I've got three of the next four PGAs," Jones said. "The scrutiny of the golfing world is intense. If you do a good job, you get a lot of credit."