"A couple of readers said courses should charge extra for playing from the back tees."

/

Thanks to reader John for John Paul Newport's WSJ follow up column on the joys of not playing too far back.

One of modern golf's fundamental problems, according to Bill Amick, a Florida-based golf-course architect who has thought much about this issue, is that many of its traditions were established in a far less egalitarian era, and the glamour of the sport continues to revolve around elite players. Developers believe, probably with justification, that only "championship" courses in excess of 7,000 yards long will receive enough notoriety, such as rankings on the prestigious top-course lists published by golf magazines, to successfully anchor a new high-end housing community or to be a draw at a big-time resort.

'I can confirm that I have never had a client ask for a shorter course, even when it was abundantly clear it would be more appropriate," emailed David Leininger, who worked for many years in golf-course development.

Owners and operators also got a lot of heat for being so ineffective in directing players to the appropriate tees. But readers had plenty of suggestions, ranging from the eminently practical (posting signs at the first tee suggesting which tees were appropriate for which handicap levels) to the European (putting out only one set of playable men's tees each day, as many courses in Scotland do) to de-genderizing tees by eliminating red markers, the customary color for women's tees.

A couple of readers said courses should charge extra for playing from the back tees. Frank Thomas, the former U.S. Golf Association technical director, says -- in all seriousness -- that courses should give free postround beer to foursomes willing to play from up front. "They might end up selling more beer in the end, and probably [would] be able to squeeze in a few more foursomes per day, because of faster play," he said.

 

"More Americans Are Giving Up Golf"

/

Paul Vitello in the New York Times tries to figure out why people are playing less. This from the National Golf Foundation fella intrigued me:

“The man in the street will tell you that golf is booming because he sees Tiger Woods on TV,” Mr. Kass said. “But we track the reality. The reality is, while we haven’t exactly tanked, the numbers have been disappointing for some time.”

Surveys sponsored by the foundation have asked players what keeps them away. “The answer is usually economic,” Mr. Kass said. “No time. Two jobs. Real wages not going up. Pensions going away. Corporate cutbacks in country club memberships — all that doom and gloom stuff.”
And... 
At the meeting here, there was a consensus that changing family dynamics have had a profound effect on the sport.

“Years ago, men thought nothing of spending the whole day playing golf — maybe Saturday and Sunday both,” said Mr. Rocchio, the public relations consultant, who is also the New York regional director of the National Golf Course Owners Association. “Today, he is driving his kids to their soccer games. Maybe he’s playing a round early in the morning. But he has to get back home in time for lunch.”

Mr. Hurney, the real estate developer, chimed in, “Which is why if we don’t repackage our facilities to a more family orientation, we’re dead.”

Oddly, no one mentioned pending groove regulation or a ball rollback as likely dangers lurking around the corner. 

"The trends that are showing up in Western Pennsylvania are also happening nationally, especially with clubs with lower budgets."

/

Thanks to reader Kevin for catching Gerry Dulac's look at the trend of Western Pennsylvania clubs going public.

"It's all about finances," said Jeff Rivard, executive director of the Western Pennsylvania Golf Association, which lists 60 private clubs and 60 public courses among its membership. "The members can't afford to foot the bill anymore and some members who have deep-enough pockets have stepped in and bought the club. The trends that are showing up in Western Pennsylvania are also happening nationally, especially with clubs with lower budgets."

 

"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?

"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

/

gwar01_071228boltseitz.jpgI'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.