True Bomber's Paradise

From an AP story on Justin Leonard and David Toms at Scottsdale:

One explanation for the two's demise on Sunday is that the TPC of Scottsdale course is a true bomber's paradise. The fairways were hard and fast and the rough thin, both caused by 109 consecutive rainless days.

Remember that last comment.

Consider the last six golfers who have won this event: Phil Mickelson, Jonathan Kaye, Vijay Singh, Chris DiMarco and Mark Calcavecchia. All but DiMarco are ahead of Leonard and Toms in driving distance average and are plenty capable of bombing it well past 300 yards.

"I think [length] is a huge advantage," Leonard said. "You can carry the bunkers and the water and avoid the trouble."

Can carry the bunkers and water. Not roll it through the bunkers and around the water. Carry it. Hmmmm...

Toms was resigned to his lack of length, but is concerned that it is starting to overrun the game.

"Some guys have to work between the bunkers like me," Toms said. "Other guys can blow it over. That's just the way it is."

Just blow it over? Wait, what about the roll? The agronomy?

This year's event provided more evidence that long drivers rule in the desert.

The final threesome of the day averaged more than 300 yards off the tee.

Holmes was first in driving distance average at 319.7 yards. His longest drive was 365 yards on No. 13 in round two. Henry was averaging 303.9 yards and was ranked 12th. His longest drive was 353 yards on the ninth hole in the first round. Palmer was the short hitter of the group, only ranking 16th and averaging 301.5. His longest drive was a paltry 340 yards on the 13th hole in the final round.

Conversely, Leonard averaged 284.1 yards off the tee, 67th out of 72 players. Toms was 47th, averaging 290.8 yards.

198 yards...8 iron

Carl Spackler: He's the Cinderella boy...he's got about 195 yards left, he's got about a - it looks like he's got about an 8-iron. This crowd has gone deathly silent. The Cinderella story, outta no where, a former greenskeeper now - about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac - It's in the Hole!

J.B. Holmes, FBR Open, 13th hole Saturday: 8 iron from 198 yards.

Unlock Golf's Stifling Shackles

Jim Achenbach writes in the Feb. 2 Golfweek (no link) that "golf needs two sets of equipment rules" or "simply needs to accept lower scores in pro events."

He says there was a "stupor" at the PGA Merchandise Show because there "was more talk about regulation than innovation."

Achenbach writes that Callaway has long "advocated two sets of equipment rules" while Acushnet head man Wally Uihlein "has argued forcefully for the acceptance of lower scores in professional events."  Actually, if you read here and here and here and here and here, Uihlein has argued forcefully that scores have not changed enough to warrant any discussion of technology regulation.

But here's where I get confused. Achenbach writes:

...the gulf between touring pros and the rest of us has widened considerably in recent years. Touring pros are able to exploit equipment regulations because of their high swing speeds. They can do things with today's golf equipment that the rest of us can't.

So it would seem that changes in the rules to address this last point--this loophole--would be ideal because they would not impact the average golfer. No?

If golf continues to be governed by one set of rules, it will either make the game more difficult for one group (amateur golfers) or make it more easier for the other group (touring pros).

Today's golf equipment is so far superior and easier to use for the average golfer than it was even ten years ago. So how will changes, if properly carried out by the governing bodies, only impact the hack and continue to let the elite player circumvent the rules? 

This would be one of those opportunities for a communications friendly USGA to let Dick Rugge write a letter to the editor. Anyway...

Do we really want the game to grow? Or do we want to preserve the integrity of par in an era of more gifted, more dedicated athletes?

You see, I knew that Hogan was a slacker! Nelson and Snead too. Gary Player...made up all that stuff about working out.

These guys today are just more dedicated and gifted. Why, they fly private jets to the tournament whereas Hogan and the boys took their time, driving in cars, taking in the scenery and you know, lollygagging.

Granted, most of today's gifted and dedicated probably couldn't break 80 with the clubs Hogan used, but hey, they're more gifted and dedicated.

The point of Achenbach's piece is that golf is not growing because of limited consumption possibilities for golfers.

So I ask, is this why people play golf? To shop? 

Are people playing less because the shopping options just aren't what they used to be? 

Tiger: Who's a shotmaker? Who maneuvers the ball?

I should have read more "Tiger at 30" stories. Well, at least in the case of Jaime Diaz's Golf Digest look. I should have known Jaime would offer a fresh and newsworthy take. And it helped to have access to an unusually chatty Tiger.

As he often does so well, Jaime lets his subject do the talking:

"I enjoy moving the ball and hitting different shots, and I think that's the way golf should be played," he says. "But the game has changed since I've been on tour. It's hard to make the ball move. You look at the old guys who are or were true shotmakers, like when I played with Lee Trevino at Bighorn and he blew my mind with some of the shots he hit. Then you look on tour and you ask, 'Who's a true shotmaker? Who actually maneuvers the ball or does something different with it?' And there really aren't that many, if any, out here anymore."

"I'd like to see more spin added to the golf ball, so misses would be more pronounced and good shots more rewarded," he said. "Anytime you bring maneuverability back into the game of golf, it's going to favor the better players who understand how to control the golf ball. It still matters in firm conditions or in wind. I always like to shape something in there a little bit just because I'm giving myself a fatter area for playing a miss, because it's not a game of perfect. I'd eliminate the 60-degree wedge and set a 56-degree limit. For one, it would bring more feel back into the game. Because now guys lay up to exact yardages and hit nothing but full shots. Nobody hits half shots anymore. And it would make the short game around the green a lot harder. If guys didn't have a 60-degree or even a 64-degree wedge to save them, you wouldn't see them being as aggressive going into the greens, because they couldn't short-side themselves as much.

"It's all about keeping the skill factor. At the moment, equipment has brought everyone closer together. It's harder to separate from the field, without a doubt. It's a challenge." 

Tiger and his technophobic agenda. A thing of beauty!  

USGA and Bowling

Steve Donahue in the Auburn Something-Or-Other writes about the USBC's lack of technology regulation in bowling. At times his comments echo the way some feel about the USGA:

The System of Bowling was defined in 1991 as the four components that had a direct affect on scoring. Those four components were: balls, pins, lane dressings, and lane surfaces.

Most of the specifications, parameters, and standards that were approved in 1991 for those four components then were based on what was available on the market at the time (especially for balls) and had been tested and approved for sanctioned competition in the “climate controlled” Testing and Research Center.

We were told each component of the System of Bowling would be reviewed periodically to insure that the integrity and the game's credibility is upheld so that a bowler's ability was the factor in scoring and not advancements in technology.

It reminds me of the “Wizard of Oz” when Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man are skipping down the yellow-brick road before they meet up with the Cowardly Lion and chanting, “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my,” because they are afraid of the dark woods they are traveling through and what unknowns await.

Who is the USBC afraid of offending when evaluating and establishing specifications for the components in the System of Bowling?

The USBC can evaluate pins until the cows come home, but if they are not willing to set relevant specifications and parameters that will address the scoreability factor of pins instead of just issuing unbelievable statements that pins of today score the same as they did back in the 1960s, then it will just be an exercise in futility.

Hey, at least they USGA doesn't do that! Donahue then writes (apparently not aware of the USGA's recent complacency...):

Is the USBC afraid if they initiate more restrictive standards for pins, balls, lane dressings, and lane surfaces, that manufacturers will protest and get reversals on balls that were rejected in the past?

The USGA sets the standards for golf balls and equipment and they aren't afraid to rule that certain balls and clubs are illegal?

Why is the USBC so gun-shy?

The Future of the European Tour (And Golf)

John Huggan looks at the impact the new PGA Tour TV deal will have on the European Tour and his general thoughts on why the Tour had a hard time getting an ideal package.

Despite the tedious and prolonged protestations of certain equipment companies apparently unconcerned with a big picture that isn't painted solely by their own bottom lines, maybe the public really is jaded by the one-dimensional crash-bang-wallop nature of a modern game in which shot making, imagination and flair have taken distant back seats to power.

It happened in tennis, so it can happen in golf.

So as the sublime touch of John McEnroe has morphed into bashers like Andy Roddick, so Tom Watson will become Bubba. I know which I'd prefer to watch.

"I Have A Theory"

It'll never be confused with Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" proclamation, but the mid-fourth round car wreck at Torrey Pines prompted Gary McCord to note that the play looked "like my buddies at home," which then had Peter Kostis announcing "I have a theory, I have a theory."

You keep building golf courses like this thing and you're going to breed a generation of 6'5" 240 pound golfers where power is everything. This golf is brutal...

Bobby Clampett chimed in at this point to remind us that the course is 7,600 yards at sea level, so we didn't get to hear Kostis expand on the theory. 

So, was he...

A) Going to say that the architects and developers are to blame for the current state of course setup and the way golf is played (flogging/ugly)?

B) Going to say that architects are to blame for the power game? 

C) Going to say that the emergence of 6'5" 240 pound players is the result of equipment that provides significant benefits for those who are taller and stronger? 

I'm guessing answer was NOT (C). So let's add architects to the better athletes/agronomy/workout programs/grooves/loft etc... rationale for doing nothing that might impact the sacred ball-driver synergy.

It's All About the Fitness

Damon Hack writes about Bubba Watson:

A confluence of fitness, equipment and old-fashioned swing speed have rendered the PGA Tour a slamfest in recent years, and Watson is at the forefront of that push — at least in swing speed.

"My dad gave me a 9-iron at age 6 and said, 'Hit it as hard as you can,' " said Watson, who weighs 180 pounds. "It's about hitting the ball in the center of the club face and hitting it hard.

"If it ever comes down to where I need a lesson, I'm retiring," Watson added. "People say, 'Quiet your hips, do your elbow.' I don't have a clue what that means. I just hit it."

As for hitting the gym?

"I just like to sleep," he said. "I think Tiger and his caddie went out running yesterday, and I was like, 'You won't see me doing that, and my caddie won't be running, either.'

"My wife has tried a few times to get me to work out, and she yells at me about that, but I don't see myself doing that," Watson added. "There will be no yoga, you won't see me lift up any weights over 100 pounds."

Okay then, it's the "agronomy." In Bubba's case.

Equipment Rules: Totally Optional

Rick Arnett on SI.com:

...I'm displaying my birthday golf wish for all to see --especially to those conservative officials at the USGA and Royal & Ancient who rule over how the game is played.

My desire is for the official honchos to forgo all equipment limitations. No size regulations on drivers or groove depth of irons or ball-distance confines next year. No restrictions on shoe spike patterns, rangefinder use, grip or special alignment considerations. Let the golf equipment designers go nuts and think way outside the box.

Hate to be the bearer of tedious tidings here, but the golf equipment manufacturers may do whatever they want.

Following the equipment rules of the USGA and R&A is completely, 100% optional.   They are free to sell as many "non-conforming" clubs and balls as they'd like.

No one in Far Hills or St. Andrews is stopping them from doing that.

"Big-Hitting Rookies Are Blowing Game Apart"

David Davies in the Telegraph writes about the "explosion" of "huge hitting" in golf, focusing on Bubba Watson's recent exploits. Lots of the numbers I've hit you over the head with here.

This was an interesting perspective:

Pat Ruddy, the eminent and amiable Irish golf course architect, is appalled by all this. "After these guys have driven the ball they have consumed over 70 per cent of the golf course. There's nothing left. The entire values of the game are being attacked by one club, the driver.

"What are we, as architects, to do? How about growing long grass from the green back towards the tee, so that they have to hit a wedge first and then a three-wood into the green? Or have 10-mile long courses?

"These tee shots have wiped out five or six clubs from the bag."

Bubba Watson won't care, of course, and neither will Jason Gore, but the rest of us should be mighty concerned about the threat to golf as we have known it.

Achenbach On The Ball

After writing about how the modern golf ball is all things wonderful--and no one can argue with its amazing design and construction--Jim Achenbach's gets to the heart of the matter:

Touring pros, aided primarily by technology and greater athletic ability, have become longer because they have learned how to outmaneuver golf ball testing standards. The U.S. Golf Association's Overall Distance Standard now reflects a maximum combined carry and roll distance (under normal test conditions) of 320 yards.

Some players have been known to carry the ball farther than that.

Now, you'd think this notion would outrage the USGA and R&A, right? 

So when is enough enough for the bombers of the PGA Tour? It may be sooner rather than later.

If the USGA rolls back the golf ball – in a drastic alteration to the rules – it should reimburse golf ball manufacturers for the expense of adapting to the new distance standard.

You laugh, but I can't think of a more appropriate headache for all sides in this caper!

The USGA handing out millions of dollars to ballmakers? Absolutely. It is the only fair thing to do.

With a shorter golf ball, golf courses will move the tees up. Golfers can play shorter courses. Older layouts can regain some of the muscle they lost in the era of golf ball expansion.

Well, no one is going to move tees up. But if they stop wanting to move them back, that would be a nice, nice start. 

Bubba Numbers

This unbylined Shark.com story looks at Bubba Watson and his prodigious driving distances.

While David Toms won the Sony Open by five shots for his 12th career PGA Tour win, it was Bubba who stole the show. It wasn't just his career-best fourth-place finish, thanks to a final-round 65, as much as Bubba's rare ability to hit tee shots into the next time zone. He averaged an eye-popping 347.5 yards at Sony.

How much of a sideshow was it? At the par-5 18th hole on Saturday, Bubba out drove playing partner Fred Funk by, oh, about 140 yards. Imagine what that was like to witness. "He's already pretty small," Bubba said of Funk.

Four of Bubba's drives in the final round were measured at more than 360 yards, including a 398-yarder at the 12th hole. Even more amazingly, he managed to hit 11-of-14 fairways during a week when the field averaged hitting just 45 percent of the fairways. 

Dawson: "As we predicted, the distance issue has plateaued"

From Sporting Life:

But Peter Dawson, the R&A's chief executive, said today that data gathered from the American and European tours has shown that "as we predicted, the distance issue has plateaued.

"In the last three years it has hardly moved. The 2005 season was one of the most exciting we have seen, and there are no symptoms of a game in decline.

"The top players are still coming to the top, but if there is one issue that does concern us it's the dis-connection between success and driving accuracy."

Mr. Dawson might be wise to check out these numbers with regard to his "hardly moved" remark. And as for symptoms of a game in decline, well, perhaps he's speaking of golf's popularity in the greater St. Andrews area.

And as for flogging ("the disconnection between success and driving accuracy"), the numbers might not be so bad if fairways returned to the 30 to 35-yard widths that we saw back in the mid-90s. But then, scores would go way down, and Lord knows, that's one area of the sport where progress must be halted at all costs.

Otto Confirms Magic Ball Project

Lawrence Donegan in The Guardian profiles the R&A's Steve Otto. You may recall that it was revealed a few weeks ago by Douglas Lowe that Otto has embarked on a R&A research project into flogging.

"My job, and the job of the people I work with, is to evaluate equipment and produce data," the man in charge of the R&A's research and testing says. "Larger philosophical questions about the impact that technology has on the game and what measures are required to keep everything in balance are taken at a much higher level than the one I operate at. I am merely a scientist."

Otto the scientist has some interesting things to say about distance.

Like every other senior member of the R&A hierarchy, Otto is unconvinced by the arguments that the modern ball goes too far. "There are many factors involved here," he says. "If there has been any increase in distance - and I don't necessarily accept that there has been - then I would say it is down to the greater athleticism of the players; then there is the ball and then there are the clubs. There is also the question of more efficient matching of the player and their clubs. Plus, we are also doing a study in the effect of course conditions," he says, adding the unnecessary qualification: "It is not as straightforward as people think."

No increase in distance? Perhaps he should look at these numbers, or these numbers for another point of view.

And , the efficient matching of the player and their clubs? Optimization? Perhaps Otto knows why the USGA and R&A were ahead of the curve on that issue, and chose to shelve their interest in that subject, giving us the mess we now have?

Oh no, he does better.

Unlike other R&A blazers, however, he is not coy about discussing the work that both his organisation and its American counterpart, the United States Golf Association, has put in on this issue of the golf ball. Last year the governing bodies admitted they had a "research project" into a ball that wouldn't go as far as those currently in use, although the details were sketchy. No longer.

"We wanted to see if there was a magic ball out there," Otto says. "We looked at a bigger ball, and a lighter ball; we looked at balls made from different rubbers and at balls with different dimple patterns."

The project ran into many difficulties, the most significant being that a ball that was 10% shorter for one type of player might be 20% shorter for another, and therefore intrinsically unfair. "People thought there might be a solution that would keep the game the same but also address this question of distance," Otto says. "There wasn't. The problem is there is no single definition of a magic ball."

As for the current location of those intriguing, if less than magical, balls, Otto laughs. "They are in a cupboard somewhere, under lock and key." Never to be seen again? "Exactly."

You may recall that former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan wrote about a "miracle ball" that the USGA was attempting to develop back in February, 2004. He was not taken seriously.
 

It's not clear where Otto's remarks on the ball project leave the current USGA/R&A request for manufacturers to submit "rolled back" balls for testing. 

Though no companies had submitted balls as of November, Titleist said last summer that they cooperated.
 

To Go Or Not To Go?

Listening to LA sports talk radio shows slam Pete Carroll over the decision to go for it on fourth down of yesterday's national title game, I got to thinking how rare it is in modern golf to have those essential do-or-die moments that are debated for days, weeks, or even years after. 

It should happen every few weeks. We're lucky if it happens once a year.

A reader told me today about watching Jack Nicklaus at Pebble Beach during the 1982 U.S. Open final round. Nicklaus was debating whether to go for No. 6 in two, concerned that he could not get the ball high enough to clear the hill that bisects the par-5. After an agonizing few minutes, Nicklaus finally decided to go for it. When he pulled his 3-wood headcover off, the crowd went wild.

How rare have those moments become when the player stands in the fairway, actually fretting and debating between a lay-up or go-for-broke shot as we fans debate the situation. How unusual are those memorable events (Curtis Strange at Augusta in 1985 and Chip Beck in 1993 come to mind) when the anticipation is so great that there is an emotional release from the crowd when a decision is made to go-for-broke?

It should happen a lot more in tournament golf, but sadly seems relegated to the times someone drives a par-4. 

Bland architecture is part of the problem, but mostly, the game is just played differently. With trajectory and questions of having enough distance so rarely part of the equation for today's player, we rarely see the golfing elite placed in that tempting, awkward, annoying but possibly rewarding situation that can make golf viewing so captivating.

Well, this rambling rant is just something to remember when you wonder why all of the questions here about the wonders of technology. Or if you wonder why television networks have trouble justifying an investment in televised golf, which just isn't the "product" it could be if the sport was in balance.