Elling Rebuts "Where's The Balance?"

Steve Elling fights back with a note to Acushnet CEO Wally Uihlein over the "Where's The Balance" commentary.

I've never thought of myself as "unequivocally biased," the term your Web site ascribed. But like lots of fans -- most of them don't have the forum to express themselves -- I've become downright contemptuous of the lack of finesse on display at many tour stops. It's not golf as we once knew it when a kid like J.B. Holmes is bombing his 3-wood more than 300 yards in the air while winning last month at Phoenix. Or when Tiger Woods wins tournaments despite missing half the fairways.

And... 

As for the notion of credibility, the Sentinel has zero financial stake in the technology issue. With regard to the latter, no sooner had Holmes won while hitting 197-yard 8-iron shots than did he become the poster boy for your Cobra subsidiary.

Within days, highlights of Holmes' jaw-dropping performance were edited into a new TV ad, featuring narrated snippets from CBS Sports commentator David Feherty uttered during the live broadcast.

There's no conflict of interest here. Feherty, meanwhile, is a paid Cobra endorser. Sure, the animated Irishman has a tendency to get carried away at times, but when he fawned over Holmes, claiming that he hadn't been this excited since he watched Tiger Woods play as a rookie, it sounded like your office was feeding scripted lines into his headset.

Oh there are going to be some busy bloggers this afternoon!
 

Palmer Not Happy With The Golf Ball

Arnold Palmer in the L.A. Times:

"If I were playing the tour today, I would be doing what these young guys are doing: hitting the ball 320, 30, 40 yards and doing the things I would have to do to be competitive," he said at an event for Los Valles Golf Club, which is scheduled to open in 2008.

Those very distances he rattles off rankle him, though. The long-distance ball and new-age equipment, he laments, may be making some venerable old courses obsolete.

"I am not happy [with the golf ball]," he says. "The major things I would do [to change today's game] would be to slow the golf ball down right now, yes sir." By mandating a retro-ball that does not travel as far, golf's powers would not have to keep lengthening courses to keep up with today's power hitters.

"They wouldn't have to take such drastic measures to make courses like Oakmont and Winged Foot competitive," Palmer says of the layouts that play host to majors.

"You don't need to make that many big changes, but make it so the ball doesn't fly 400 yards. These kids that are playing [now] are going to hit whatever you make a long ways."

Notice the lack of journalistic balance in this L.A. Times story. Joel Greenberg should have gotten an alternative view to Mr. Palmer's anti-golf ball technology agenda. 

But I can only suspect he didn't because he appeared at this groundbreaking with an anti-technophobic agenda and convinced Mr. Palmer to endorse that agenda. Where's the balance? ;)
 

More on "Where's The Balance?"

Ryan Ballangee at The SportsFan and 19th Hole Golf Show looks at Titleist's "Where's The Balance" commentary. After you look at what Ryan wrote, you might want to check out the Where's The Balance comment thread on this site. Fun debate.

Anyway, check out Ballangee's piece. It's short. But just in case it vanishes into cyberspace someday... 

It does not take a very keen set of eyes to notice that the game is fizzling. Further, it is only too convenient that the decline in rounds played and Tour fan base has occurred at a time when there has never been greater technology to allow professionals to hit the ball further than ever. Journalists have put two and two together and yelled "fore" about the bad direction that the game is going because of uncurbed technology. (This serious column needed some terrible humor.)

As it turns out, I am not the only one calling it as I see it. Other golf writers - who I have great respect for - are also calling for stronger regulation of golf technology now before the game gets out of control. Apparently, the golf equipment companies have been taking notice and they feel they are being gipped. Now, they're fighting back - anonymously.


Sahallee Blues

Blayne Newnham, writing about Sahallee deserving another major in the Seattle Times:

There is concern the PGA Championships have outgrown Sahalee and Seattle, that the 27 holes isn't big enough to do the corporate tent thing, that there isn't room for enough spectators, that Seattle has shown less than robust corporate support.

Concern, too, that the course isn't big enough to handle 350-yard drives.

After the PGA in 1998, Kerry Haigh, the director of tournaments, was asked about the tightness of Sahalee's fairways limiting the use of the driver among players.

"It was their choice and it made for long iron shots to the greens," he said. "Some players hit more drivers than others, and none of them, as far as I know, complained."

The PGA of America wanted to expand its horizons, it wanted to bring the tournament to the Northwest.

It found a different and spectacular course, one that could quiet technology with nature.

Or, someone could quiet technology by actually regulating it? Nah, that makes too much sense!

Driving Force: The Anti-Tech Agenda At Play

The Arizona Daily Star's Charles Durrenberger reveals his agenda to bring down the ball companies by writing about the emergence of power thanks to technology.

Despite lengthening the Catalina Course by some 500 yards, the big hitters still have a huge advantage — especially on the par 5s — which yielded a record 54 eagles in 2005.

For example, [Bubba] Watson can carry the bunkers on the redesigned par-5 eighth hole, some 305 yards off the tee. Purdy says he has trouble reaching the green in two.

"It's become a big man's sport," added Purdy, who ranked 131st in driving distance last year. "The technology and equipment have allowed players to hit it further than ever."

See, it was the writer's agenda to put those words in Purdy's mouth.

Veteran Nick Price said technology and equipment have had the biggest effect on the game since he turned pro 29 years ago.
"Younger guys know more about the swing than I did at their age," Price said. "And the sweet spot on these drivers is as big as a plum. You can swing a lot harder without losing it."

See, Nick Price was just spellbound by the swaying stopwatch that Durrenberger dangled before him, repeating whatever Durrenberger wants to spread the gospel of anti-technology!

Where's the Balance?

It's been a while since they posted a unbylined complaint over at Titleist.com, but it's good to know the theme never changes. Yes, that's right, we're back to the golf media's "anti-golf ball technology agenda":

But what is disturbing is when members of the golf media use their position to advance their anti-technology and anti-golf ball technology agenda to golfers without providing their readers the opportunity to learn from an opposing view.

That's right, you cannot pick up a golf magazine without reading that anti-ball technology propaganda. It's stifling, I tell you!

While free speech is a wonderful thing, and the golf media has every right to provide editorial opinions, it is disillusioning to know that the opposing facts are often conveniently overlooked. Where then do the 25 million golfers in the U.S. get exposed to a balanced perspective on the long-standing technology and tradition debate?

I nominate Titleist.com. No agenda there!

And if the PGA Tour is going to measure the perception of the public relative to distance to consider whether additional rule modifications are desirable, and media coverage is imbalanced, then one can hardly expect golfers/fans of the PGA Tour to have an open mind.

It really is all the media's fault. Well, and are they implying that the average golfer is not smart enough to weed through the bias and come to their own conclusions? 

Semantics are another powerful tool used to influence readers' reactions. When referring to the USGA, he uses derogatory terms like "apparently awakened from a Rip Van Winkle-length coma" and a "dawdling organization". He notes that Kenny Perry is feeling "increasingly obsolete" or "something's out of whack when Perry ranked 11th in the world, feels like a Lilliputian." The fact is Kenny Perry will turn 46 this August. In how many professional sports can a 46-year old still remain competitive let alone, be ranked 11th in the world in their chosen sport?

You might want to check out the story that has upset the writer so. Here's what Perry said that Steve Elling characterized as increasingly obsolete: "Skill? That's kind of where the tour has gone. You can hit it 50 yards off-line and hit a wedge out of the rough. They can still fire at the flagstick. That's the way golf has played out the last couple of years."

Those semantics! Not obsolete. He just feels really good about being left behind. 

What is even more alarming is digging behind the scenes to the actual press conference and reading the unequivocally biased "questions" asked of J.B. Holmes:

 Q. John, with the way that you have been piping it out there the last few years, now that you are out here with the big boys, and blowing it past all of them, there has been sort of a negative side to it to, people are saying he hits it too far, they need to rein that in. What's your response to all of that? You can become the poster boy for the USGA making rules changes.

Q. You don't think there has been a lessening of the skill factor because you only have to hit your 3-iron, 4-iron, 5-iron a couple of times per tournament? It's mostly a wedge, 9-iron. These are some of the points that have been raised. You are just overwhelming golf courses.

These aren't questions. They are "leading the witness" statements by a reporter with an agenda.

You know, another S word comes to mind to describe those new Cobra ads where David Feherty, CBS's on-course announcer and member of the Cobra staff, is drooling all over Cobra's J.B. Holmes during the FBR final round and conveniently, his final day raves appear in a new Cobra ad campaign.

Now that's synergy, baby! Of course, you can be the judge by checking the ad out over at Cobra's web site, a company owned by Fortune Brands, the same folks who own Titleist.

After a rant about no one celebrating Arron Oberholser's short driving and great putting en route to victory at Pebble Beach, we get to the heart of the matter:

The game has changed. But that is hardly new as this timeless deep-rooted debate about technological advancement is as old as the game itself. Where is the evidence to support that the game has been harmed?

Uh, how about this: Lousy ratings? Or flat rounds despite equipment that has never made the game easier.

No, I know, the NGF, Nielson, shoot, they're all biased!

The Titleist commentary left out a remark about the enormous financial gains that these anti-technology folks stand to gain from their agendas.

As opposed to the equipment companies, who are in this purely for the love of the game.

The piece also does not explain all these famous golfers like Palmer, Nicklaus, Norman and Woods who are saying something should be done about distance.

I guess they've been bamboozled by the media's anti-technology agenda, too?

47 Inches Too Many

Classic moment on No. 1 today of the WGC Match Play.

Vijay Singh is teeing off, trying out a new driver that looks like something Rocky Thompson once used. You may recall that the first hole (old 10th) has water way off the tee that sometimes comes into play for tee shots finishing in the trees.

Here's what the ABC guys said as Vijay's drive took off and headed for the lake.

PAUL AZINGER: Vijay is another player who is experimenting with a 47-inch driver like Phil did yesterday. And hitting it a mile.

NICK FALDO: It's in the water! Well that extra inch was worth it.

PAUL AZINGER: That is Un-be-lievable.

MIKE TIRICO: That's like 320 to where the fairway runs out on 1.

PAUL AZINGER: That's ridiculous. That is not in play. 

MIKE TIRICO: I remember that from last year, it's about 320 to the fairway running out there, maybe 330.

IAN BAKER FINCH: The center of the fairway is 336.

NICK FALDO (laughing): Well, he gotten good news. The 47 inches worked! 

Titleist Seeks Patent For Reduced Flight Ball

The plot thickens.

Applying for a patent, Titleist is. The product:

A high performance golf ball having a reduced overall distance while maintaining the appearance of a high performance trajectory. The golf ball includes a combination of low CoR core and cover materials coupled with a less aerodynamic dimple pattern that achieves a reduction in carry and overall distance of 15 and 25 yards versus a conventional golf ball, while still providing the look, sound, feel and apparent flight of a conventional golf ball. A high performance golf ball having a reduced distance is also achieved by controlling dimensionless coefficients of lift/weight and drag/weight at certain Reynolds numbers and spin ratios for various CoR.

And here's what Tiger has been suggesting for some time now, slowing down the core:

One golf ball component, in particular, that many manufacturers are continually looking to improve is the center or core. The core is the "engine" that influences the golf ball to go longer when hit by a club head. Generally, golf ball cores and/or centers are constructed with a polybutadiene-based polymer composition. Compositions of this type are constantly being altered in an effort to provide a targeted or desired coefficient of restitution ("CoR"), while at the same time resulting in a lower compression which, in turn, can lower the golf ball spin rate and/or provide better "feel."

Here's where they acknowledge that some ball-driver combos are outsmarting the current USGA testing:

On the new USGA standard: Advances in golf ball compositions and dimple designs have caused some high performance golf balls to exceed the maximum distance allowed by the United States Golf Associates (USGA), when hit by a professional golfer. The maximum distance allowed by the USGA is 317 yards.+-.3 yards, when impacted by a standard driver at 176 feet per second and at a calibrated swing condition of 10.degree., 2520 RPM, and 175 MPH with a calibrated ball. 

Yes, this is probably just a technicality related the USGA ball study.

But I still say that the first company coming out with such a ball and if it finds its way to classic, respected courses, has a better chance of establishing dominance in the "competition ball" or "classic course ball" market. Or even the overall market, should the USGA act.

And if that company is Titleist, they not only solidify their well-earned place atop ball sales, they earn huge points for doing the right thing from traditionalists/purists/above average golfers, a sizeable portion of their Pro V1 customer base.

TGC Talk From Perth

You won't hear a conversation like this on U.S. television this weekend:

RENTON LAIDLAW: You were talking about the difference in equipment and how it has affected the game, Ken.

KEN BROWN: Well the modern ball not only goes a long way, but it goes very straight as well. So the dispersion of your iron shots going to greens, where you were going with 5s and 6s, now your going with 8s. Certainly the bunkerings now a bit remote. 230 yards used to be a big carry with the driver.

RENTON LAIDLAW: Is all this big hitting affecting the game? Is it a detriment to the game?

MIKE CLAYTON: Well I think it is. I think it cost a fortune to change golf courses. And people change golf courses for people people who are never going to play them. At Lake Karrinyup, we had a meeting and we had to explain that there is no point designing a course for Ernie Els. He plays there once ever ten years, and its a members course. And you start seeing ridiculously long courses that people can never play. I don't know how you design golf courses for pros. You need to make them 8,000 yards and if you make them that long--even 7,500 yards--you don't have any great short holes and it seems to me this is why the game is in a mess. They need to do something about it. J.B. Holmes is not going to be the only guy driving it 350 yards.

KEN BROWN: But who is going to do something about it?

MIKE CLAYTON: Well, the people who run the game. Does Titleist run the game or does the USGA run the game?

RENTON LAIDLAW: Kevin Flint for par [laughing].

KEN BROWN: You're very quiet Renton.

RENTON LAIDLAW: [Laughing]

KEN BROWN: An R&A member.

RENTON LAIDLAW: I don't think that really has anything to do with it. It's not at all relevant. [Laughing] 

Callaway Sues Acushnet

Callaway sues Acushnet over the Pro-V1 after negotiations break down.

According to the complaint, the Sullivan patents "revolutionized the game of golf" and "have done more to change the game of golf than any other equipment advance in the history of the game."
Now this is interesting, because Titleist argues that the ball is not the only thing uh, revolutionizing the game. But instead it's the optimization, athleticism, the agronomy (LOL!) and other fun stuff.

 
Yet here is Callaway saying the ball that they created and which they claim Titleist copied has "done more to change the game" than any other piece of equipment. Ever.

So much for these two lovebirds joining hands for a joint lawsuit when/if the USGA acts.

More Tiger Talk

More from Tiger's Masters media day:

Q. I wanted to ask you about moving to new technology, getting more distance, is that a reflection of what was happening on Tour the last couple of years versus what you could see was going to happen with guys like J.B. Holmes and Bubba Watson coming up?

TIGER WOODS: Well, the guys -- I know I didn't use technology, the advances in technology for a couple of years. Guys were sacrificing some of the spins that they would normally have for distance, and they have gone longer and lighter in shafts, bigger, hotter heads and obviously higher launching and less-spinning golf balls. All of that equates to a lot more yardage. What I've always told the guys at Nike is that I've always wanted a golf ball that would spin around the greens. So can I actually hit the ball further? Yeah, there's no doubt about that, if I went to the golf balls that other guys are using. I decided to use technology in the driver only and not necessarily the golf ball. I've got more of an overall-performing golf ball than some of the other guys because my ball does spin a little bit more, but I am able to hit it further than the old golf balls I used to play.

Nugent: Tiger Could Play In the NFL

If you are a Golfweek subscriber, you may have noticed that publisher Jim Nugent has written several columns on the distance issue. Perhaps none of his writers will take his anti-USGA/anti-common sense regulation stance, or times are tough and his staff is spread thin. 

Either way, he has made the unusual move of stepping away from his role as Publisher to write a series of op-ed pieces. And the resulting work would be funny if it weren't actually damaging the credibility of his otherwise fine publication. He writes in an online exclusive:

There is little debate that the ball travels farther today on Tour than it did when Nicklaus and Palmer ruled the fairways. But myriad factors have caused this to occur.

Jack and Arnie were never mistaken for NFL linebackers; Tiger Woods and some of his contemporaries could start for a lot of pro football teams, such is their athletic prowess.

What, as place-kickers? On semi-pro teams?

Yes, this is definitely the better athletes argument gone farther awry then ever before! 

The rest of the piece goes on to talk about how there is no evidence that the game has suffered, the golfers will never stand for it, etc., etc., etc...

Sirak on Long John (Holmes)

Ron Sirak writes about the emerging youth in men's and women's golf, with J.B. Holmes as his prime example of the next generation inspired by Tiger Woods.

While there is no doubt that the occassional power player that comes out of no where and drives it insane distances proves fascinating (as Sirak says), there does not seem to be much consideration for the ramifications that this equipment-aided boom might be having on say, course design or setup.

Nor is there acknowledgement that this phenomenon is in large part the product of improved equipment, not necessarily improved skill.

It would seem the question of skill and what exactly it means is one worth debating. Because if nothing else, it would be an interesting debate. No?