Kaufman On OGA

In the March 25 issue, Golfweek's assistant managing editor and business writer Martin Kaufman felt compelled to comment on colleague Jim Achenbach's original Ohio Golf Association ball story, citing this quote:

"We are leaning to one that optimizes (distance efficiency off the tee) between 100 and 105 miles per hour (driver swing speed),"  said Alan Fadel, chairman of the OGA ball committee. "The ball is not going to benefit somebody at 120 (mph) the way the current ball does. We are trying to achieve a little more equality, that's all."

Kaufman appears to not understand that Fadel is referring to the impact of optimization (where properly matched players in the 115 mph-and-up range are getting excessive turbo boosts that effectively work around the USGA's Overall Distance Standard).

So there you have it: Golf's honchos officially have begun to embrace mediocrity rather than celebrating excellence. Years from now, the OGA's foolhardy decision might be remembered as a beachhead for the establishment of a welfare state for mediocre Tour players.

First, this "foolhardy decision" amounts to a 2-day, totally optional state golf association event where the ball is provided free of charge. This is not The Players Championship THE PLAYERS.

Those of us who have followed the issue know that one of the underlying issues with recent distance increases is that of skill, and the blurring of lines between the very good player and the super-elite.

Players of supreme skill like Tiger Woods or Ernie Els would be even better in an event using a ball like the one the OGA has selected. Their games would not be brought down by such a ball. They'd be even better. Tiger has even hinted that he's well aware of this possibility, which is one reason he can't campaign too hard for a change in the ball spec that introduces more spin or one that impacts the role of optimization.

Kaufman sees it the other way, and brings up the issue of equality. He believes the governing bodies have a desire to bring everyone down to the same level.

Any effort to legislate equality, whether in sports or broader society, is inherently problematic, if not doomed to failure. It sends a perverse message that top performers will be penalized for excellence, while laggards can count on benevolent rulers to shield them from superior performers.

And...

Players who swing the driver 120 mph and can control the ball's flight should hold an advantage over players who swing 105 mph. Swinging a golf club abnormally fast reflects superior athletic ability and training. And yes, it reflects superior skill. You remember skill, don't you. Golf used to celebrate it.

I seriously doubt any governing body wants to bring everyone together via an equipment change. (Course setup, that's another story.) Those swinging 120 m.p.h. would regain the proper edge that they deserve with a properly handled rollback.

Groups like the OGA want to eliminate the 350-yard drive born out of the optimization of launch conditions.  Groups like the USGA--assuming the Joint Statement is to be believed--want to reward the player who is physically strong and who can swing the club "abnormally fast," but also reward those who are genuinely precise with their ball striking.

Modern equipment has blurred distinctions in these two areas. 

Tom Kite In The Forecaddie, Debut of The List

Courtesy of reader Stan, who kindly typed this from the current Golfweek (since I'm still waiting on an issue with a March dateline to reach the apparently hard-to-reach home of the homeless):

Hall of Famer Tom Kite never won a Masters, but he had a splendid record there, racking up 11 top-6 finishes, including three seconds. He knows a thing or two about what it takes to excel at Augusta National. When the Man Out Front asked Kite whether a medium-length hitter could contend routinely as he did given the course changes, the topic stirred some passion.

"I can understand making the golf course stand up to technology," Kite said. "Unfortunately they're responding to what's happening with just a top few players. From what I've heard has been done, I don't know if Arnold (Palmer) could've won there. (He won there four times) He made such good recovery shots, but if you hit a 3-iron, you're not going to hit the green. It takes that ability away."

Palmer and Jack Nicklaus got Kite's attention when they expressed concern over the latest National changes. Kite says he understands why courses have to be lengthened. And he gets fired up talking about it.

"If the manufacturers continue to run the game, I think the game is in for a long, tough road," he said. "The rule-making body (USGA) is not making rules for the game. The manufacturers are, and their No. 1 goal is to sell product. The game has changed so dramatically in the last six, eight years. What's happened is a joke. It's mind-boggling, compared to how much change there was over the last 100 years. Everything is based on speed. It's not based on ball-striking. If you want a good game, you can go buy it."

And with these comments, I guess it's time to debut a still-very-much-under-construction page on this site, called simply "The List."

The List features comments and links from just a few noted names in the golf world who have expressed concern about the distance issue, and their suggested remedies.

I have yet to go back into my archives of stories to post pre-2005 statements, but for now, The List should give you an idea where just some of golf's bigger names stand on the distance issue. Naturally, I welcome reader submissions to help make the list more definitive.

Funk: "they've lost control of the game. I'll swear to that."

Reuters ran with a condensced version of the Fred Funk's comments at the Players. But if you have the time, it's worth reading exactly what he said:

Q. We've seen so much of a tug o'war going on in the game about the power game and bombs away versus skill and precision. Do you feel like it's evolved to a point where power is going to be a requisite skill?

FRED FUNK: Yeah, I feel bad right now. My son loves the game of golf. He's a little guy. He's obviously not going to be physically very big. Not that little guys don't hit the ball a long way, but most little guys don't hit the ball a long way. There's always the exception.

I don't feel with where the game has gone that he will ever have a chance to play on the PGA Tour because he doesn't hit the ball far enough. The kids coming up now are hitting the ball miles. With today's equipment, you just have to it's so forgiving, the driver, I don't think it's the driver so much that's allowing you to hit it a long way; it's the more golf swing givability of the driver that allows you to swing at it. If you're blessed with that swing speed, the ball takes off for you and doesn't come down. Guys are flying it 330, 340 yards right now, which is a joke. It's made designing golf courses a nightmare. It's changed the whole philosophy of the game.

I met with [Arnold] Palmer's group a couple weeks ago, and talking to them about how they design a golf course that's fair for a guy that can hit it 330 and a guy that hits it 270 and where they have to place their corners and place the bunkers and everything else. You can't make it fair.

I really believe, and I know I'm one of the short guys barking with the guys hitting it a long way, so it doesn't get much attention; he's just jealous that he doesn't hit it that far. I truly believe if you're blessed with that kind of ability that you get the benefit of the golf ball, you don't need as much talent as the old players did because you can hit it so far. Just bomb it over all the trouble and you have a wedge or 9 iron into the green, and you're going to hit a lot of greens. I don't care how deep the rough is. And they're strong already, they're going to get it on the green out of the rough, or somewhere around it. I just don't see the skill level, other than just clubhead speed being a big factor in the future.

Q. Some people argue it would be a good thing to have bigger, better athletes, maybe the next wave you'll see a Tour full of 6'4", 240-pounders.

FRED FUNK: That's naturally going to happen because for one, the game of golf has become a great game to play as a kid. Now it's looked upon as a sport; I blame Tiger Woods for it because he's made the game cool. It's a cool game to play as a kid.

The kids are seeing the money we're playing for, they're seeing the personalities we have out here, especially with well, when Tiger came out and was No. 1, but right now our rookie class with Camilo [Villegas] and J. B. Holmes and Bubba [Watson] and numerous others, but those three guys are remarkable guys, unbelievable talent. They hit the ball miles, and they see that, and how can a kid that has a lot of athletic ability and he's fortunate enough to get introduced to the game of golf and doesn't pursue it? He ends up with a linebacker's body and he's playing golf. It's going to happen.

And why it's going to happen it is because it's a cool sport and we're going to have more and more kids playing it at a young age and they're going to develop into some big kids and they're going to be really powerful players. The ball already goes a long way, so the sky is the limit for how far the ball may go in the future with the future golfer.

But it's sad because I think they've lost control of the game. I'll swear to that. I mean, I'll argue that until nobody can prove me different. I'll argue that with every USGA guy that tests every equipment and everything else. They can throw the ShotLink stats out, they can throw everything at me and they cannot change my mind on that. I'm just adamant about the way the game has gone really since 2002, since this last generation of golf ball.

All they really have to do, they don't have to do anything, bring one golf ball back that's talked about or bring the golf ball back, just go back to the golf ball we had before this last change, and it would narrow down that gap between the long and the short.

I don't mind being the shortest guy. I never minded being one of the shortest guys on Tour and competing with a guy that could on the stats he was 295, 300, but when you have guys at 320, 330, 335, I mean, those guys that are averaging that can actually hit it 350; that's a long way. You can't beat that on a lot of golf courses now, and the design guys have no idea what to do.

So they do one thing, they jack the tees back and they don't change the greens. They say, okay, we've got to jack the tees back to protect the golf course from the long guys. You just took all the short guys completely out of it, so now all the long guys are up at the top, unless you have a great putting week, chipping week. I'll get in trouble for that, but that's all right.

Q. I hate to stop you. You skipped the Zurich Classic [in New Orleans] last year, and I understand you're going back this year. How much did the impact of [Hurricane] Katrina have on your decision?

Hey, at least he was an admitted Rally Killer. 

Top 100 Teachers Poll

In the March 20th Sports Illustrated, the "Top 100 Teachers Poll" looks like this:

The Ohio Golf Association will run the Champions Tournament (Aug 21-23), in which all the players must use the same low-compression ball.

Good idea........41%
Bad idea..........59%

Now, considering how many of the Top 100 teachers are likely aligned with manufacturers, I was actually surprised as many as 41% said it was a good idea.

With the poll was this quote from Jim Suttie, a teacher at Cog Hill: 

"Ridiculous! One ball doesn't fit everybody's swing, so it'll take individualism out of the game."  

Besides the fact that the event is totally optional and players know what they are getting into when they enter, consider what Suttie is saying: not every ball fits everybody's swing.

Which is true. We've seen players swinging over 115 mph get an enormous turbo boost from today's ball-driver combination, as fitted on a launch monitor.

It would seem that equipment is actually taking individualism out of the game by favoring certain players, and that the Ohio Golf Association is actually trying to level the playing field again. No? 

With Respect To Innovation Head Room...

In a Copley News Service story titled "Driving For Green," we learn about the state of the golf ball business and its future. It's mostly a look at Titleist's dominance and how much the golf ball has impacted the game (oops...they're not supposed to say that...it's the agronomy, stupid!).

Here's the good part. After explaining how a ball rollback would be detrimental to the game (well, maybe someone's bottom line), we get this:

Any rollback would make it difficult for golf ball makers who spend big bucks on research and development to improve their products, said James Hardiman, an analyst who covers Callaway for FTN Midwest Research. "That's the big fear," Hardiman said. "It's not only will the USGA limit future technological advances but whether they'll roll back the standards of today."

Even now, there is a real question about how much better balls can be made within the current USGA specifications. But manufacturers like Callaway and Titleist insist that they are continually working on improvements.

Callaway's Yagley said the company's HX balls use a hexagonal dimple pattern as opposed to a more conventional round pattern to provide golfers with better aerodynamics as a way to distinguish itself.

"They'll see our HX golf balls stay in the air a little bit longer," he said. Still, golf ball makers also admit that the sea change seen with the switch from wound core to solid core balls will probably not occur again anytime soon.

"With respect to innovation head room, we believe that the limits placed on golf ball performance by physics and current regulations leave very little room for additional distance gains," said Acushnet's Nauman.

That fact may make it harder for ball makers to differentiate their products, especially for those trying to challenge Titleist. "The big player in the golf ball business is clearly Titleist and it remains to be seen if anyone can put a dent in their business," McAndrew said.

So please, help me here because I'm just kind of naive.

If you are the big player, and your position is that there will be little room for innovation or gains, why not solidify your dominance by supporting a rollback that only impacts top level players?

The Commish and The King

The Commish dropped his usual stuff about enhancing the texture and fabric of the Tour (are we making quilts here!?), while Arnold Palmer was mostly asked about the Augusta changes. He sounded like he was trying to back off some of the remarks he made to the Golf Digest Panelist Summit.

The final question was the most interesting, albeit way too long. 

Q. You and Jack obviously have a unique relationship with Augusta National, as architects, champions and members there, and you exerted some influence on the chairman a couple of years ago with regards to the age limit there, do you think that if they feel like maybe they have gone too far on some of these changes on the course, would they be willing to dial it back a little in the future and maybe restore a little less length in places or maybe cut a tree down here or there? And if you had had any influence on the changes what kind of ideas would you have to make it a course that could keep up with today's golfers without just adding length?

ARNOLD PALMER: (Turning, looking at Commissioner Finchem.)

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Don't look at me. (Laughter).

ARNOLD PALMER: I think I'll stay out of that. (Laughter).

JOAN vT ALEXANDER: Thank you for joining us.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Thanks for rescuing us Joan. 

The Microchip Driver

Thanks to reader Chris for this Maurice Chittenden story in the Sunday Times.

Scientists have invented a computerised club to help golfers hit the ball straighter and further.

The club uses a microchip and electric fibres in its titanium head to calculate where the ball is being hit. In the milliseconds the club and ball are in contact, the microchip redistributes the forces in the head to put as much power and accuracy behind the shot as possible.

It may offer the perfect answer for the bad golfer who wants to reduce his handicap.

But whether it is a fair way to play golf is another matter. The invention seems certain to drive a wedge between Head, the sports equipment manufacturer, and the R&A, the sport’s ruling body based at the Royal and Ancient golf club, St Andrews.

The new driver could cost as much as £1,000, more than a whole set of standard clubs.

Johan Eliasch, the multi-millionaire chairman and chief executive of Head and a scratch golfer himself, said last week at his office in London’s Mayfair: “We have been through the rules of golf and we believe it is legal.

“Even though it started as an April Fool’s joke people bought into it and now it is for real. It will revolutionise golf and take the sport’s technology to a new level. We have tested it with robots and the new club will drive a ball 10-15% further and the shot will be 25% straighter.”

His company uses what are known as piezoelectric fibres, which are made of lead zirconate titanate. They were developed by the US defence department and are used in satellites and Stealth bombers.

Thinly layered in the head of the golf club, they react to the mechanical energy of the ball being struck, converting it into an electrical current that is fed to the microchip.

The microchip produces its own electrical response, which is sent back into the fibres to produce a corrective force behind the ball. All this happens while the ball and the club are still in contact.

Head is also reportedly working on a brain microchip implant that electronically zaps any feelings of regret that the golfer might sense after spending $2000 dollars and still not hitting it any straighter.

On a serious note, Tony Jacklin was asked about the club. As usual, the technophobic media led him astray...

“It’s mindboggling what is going on in developing new clubs. The professionals have already made some incredible headway in the distances they are hitting the ball.

“But while golf gets hooked into this technology, traditional golf courses, especially in Britain, are becoming obsolete for professionals because there is no room to lengthen them.”

LPGA Driving Comes Long Way

Tom Spousta wrote last week about the recent increase in LPGA driving distance. The recurring theme: players are working out to take advantage of the equipment.

In other words, today's players are focused on adapting their bodies to equipment, instead of the equipment to their bodies. 

Spousta writes:

"It's the same thing we're seeing on the PGA Tour. Players are stronger and longer. They've matched up the technology to their golf swings," says Dottie Pepper, a TV analyst and on-course reporter for NBC and The Golf Channel.

And...

"There's no doubt in my mind swing speeds are increasing," says David Leadbetter, who coaches Wie and several others on both tours. "Certainly with the equipment nowadays they can go at the ball a lot harder without fear of going that much off line."

And...

"The girls are getting strong enough to see the feedback from the new technology," Pepper says. "They're finding the optimum swing speed for these balls to do what they were designed to do. It's cool stuff."

Again, this is not news.

But the theme here goes to the questions many have about steroids possibly entering golf.

After the effects of working out have leveled off, might a player be tempted to turn to performance enhancing drugs to increase clubhead speed to take advantage of equipment that disproportionately rewards high-end clubhead speeds, and in a game where course setups reward power?

Azinger On Honda Telecast

Paul Azinger was interviewed after Saturday's third round:

JIMMY ROBERTS: Well you see it from the booth, but what about being out here on the ground? I know it's not like you went away completely but to be out here on the ground and see these guys hitting 400-yard drives, playing the game like this, how different is it for you?

PAUL AZINGER: I think on average I'm probably not that much different than I was when I was playing my best, personally. But you see...I think technology, in a lot of ways, minimizes the talent of the guys who are bombing it, because they are really, really good. But somehow the press wants to make them out to be just guys that can bomb it. And I think it minimizes their talent. Which is one of the drawbacks of the technology issue. But it's just a reality, you know, whoever needed to control that let it get away and it's unfortunate. But I don't know how you dial back the clock, Jimmy. We're stuck with it.

OGA Story By Rubenstein

It turns out that Lorne Rubenstein revealed the Ohio Golf Association's competition ball idea in a December 31, 2005 column. A few of the more interesting passages:

The Ohio Golf Association has been discussing during the past four years the inordinate advantages that a golfer who can swing the driver at, say, 120 miles (193 kilometres) an hour, gains over somebody who can't get higher than 110 mph, and on down the line. (The majority of golfers, by the way, don't swing much more than 90 mph.) The benchmark until hot golf balls came along in the past few years was an increase in distance of three yards for every mile an hour of swing speed.

The golfer who swung at 112 mph, for instance, might drive the ball 270 yards, and somebody who reached 120 would hit it 294. But the latter golfer is up to about 310 to 315 yards now, according to tour professionals who notice these things.

The cutoff point where the incremental distance is beyond three yards for a mile an hour is about 114 to 115 mph. Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Vijay Singh and other golfers who swing at the higher speeds gain a tremendous advantage, beyond the traditional benchmark.

And...

[Alan] Fadel wouldn't indicate the manufacturer, whose name won't appear on the ball. The point, he said, “is that we want the ball to react equitably for different swing speeds, not exponentially, but equitably. We're not drawing the ball back, but we think it's necessary to bring equity back in.”

Fadel was speaking publicly about the subject for the first time yesterday. He'll be doing more during the new year.

“The USGA is very interested in what we're doing,” he said. “But they can't really do something like this [at the U.S. Open or Amateur, for instance]. They have assets and are exposed, and they're involved in so many areas of the game. We don't have legal liabilities, so it makes sense for us to do this.”

Fadel explained that the material used for the ball and, perhaps, its dimple pattern, will help generate the equitable differences in distance.

A Plan For The Future

Jim Achenbach writes his latest online column a bit like Nuke LaLouche pitches (all over the place). But you have to love that he is writing about the issues, trying trying to generate discussion and attempting to consider all sides of the equation.

He first suggests that a competition ball would be the best way to go:

The answer is for the USGA to create a "condition of competition" that allows tournament officials to impose the use of a shorter ball. This ball would be used in PGA Tour events and any other tournament, professional or amateur, that elects to go with this detuned ball.

Sure, this notion is controversial. Regardless, it provides a workable answer to the distance dilemma.

Golf fans in the big world out there don't give a toot whether J.B. Holmes uses the exact same ball as you and I, but everyday golfers drool over the possibility of hitting some of the same irons into par 4s as Holmes does.

The one-ball rule was established as a condition of competition, and the same could be done with the velocity of the golf ball.

And he seems to be joining the growing chorus that feels the difficulty of relating to the pro game may be stifling the growth of everyday golf.

If we are serious rather than hypocritical, we will do whatever is reasonable to foster the growth of the game. I believe that equalizing the playing field between tour pros and the rest of us would make the game more compelling.

Fine. Now, here's where things start to get interesting...

Because golf is so difficult, we must be conscious of the regulations that are imposed on golfers and their equipment. If I were the czar of golf, I would change the maximum number of clubs from 14 to 15. This would help revitalize the industry and would allow golfers to take advantage of new clubs such as hybrids.

Don't expect a 15-club limit any time soon, but the point remains: We should be encouraging the expansion of all segments of the game, including golf equipment manufacturers.

Really?  Or maybe some pushed for such a rapid product turnover cycle that manufacturers have used up their best stuff?  Or dare I say, maybe they've created weary consumers who might feel like they are being taken advantage of?

My fear is that additional golf equipment regulations will stifle creativity within the golf industry. Too many rules could result in an environment in which golf clubs and balls are sold largely through smoke and mirrors rather than performance.

Lord knows that line has never been crossed!

If design creativity is limited, golf companies are smart enough to compensate with creative marketing. This can lead to greater confusion among golfers and less emphasis on the true sophistication of golf equipment.

I remember mentioning to a very well known equipment maker that he must really enjoy the creative side of designing clubs. His reply? "Nope, it's all about marketing." 

If golf is not healthy and does not grow, there is a trickle-down effect that touches many aspects of the game. We would be wise to consider the many golf jobs created among golf manufacturers, golf professionals, golf shops, golf course maintenance staffs, clubhouse employees and all golf-related businesses.

True, and just think how many more tips a member could hand out if he did not buy that 15th club!

Or...eh, forget it. Here's where things seem to unravel:

Golf is an outdoor sporting phenomenon that is played by all ages. It should not be diminished, thwarted or truncated. It should remain vital, dynamic and spirited.

All things considered, this is why USGA officials are so worried. We (and they) are standing at Ground Zero. We must choose the path to the future.

The final exam for Golf 101 has just one multiple-choice question:

(A) Do we really want golf to grow and prosper? Or . . .

(B) Do we want it to reflect and resemble the game it was 50 years ago?

Think hard, because in all likelihood there is no "all of the above" answer.

The conclusion seems to be: the game as it is now is much better off than 50 years ago, BUT...we need to fix the mess we are in now.

Ohio GA Competition Ball Event Follow-Up

Many potential ramifications loom from the Ohio Golf Association's decision to try out a shorter-flying ball this August. 

Readers of The Future of Golf know that a similar scenario was suggested. One in which such a grass roots uprising could be the equivalent Softspikes. 

Such a scenario may occur here, and you have to like the prospects of the ball company that ends up being the choice of the the Ohio Golf Association's competition ball.  

And don't shed any tears for the companies whose balls are not selected. They've had several years to prepare such a ball for this scenario.

They passed up the chance in the apparent hope this would go away.

And as for the USGA's likely chilly reception to this idea? Again, they've had plenty of time to act and have done nothing.

PS - Anyone care to nominate which ball Ohio might have found on the conforming ball list? I'd sure like to buy some and try them out, and I bet a bunch of other people would as well.
 

Ohio Golf Assn: Trying A Competition Ball

Thanks to reader George for the heads on Jim Achenbach reporting in the new Golfweek that the Ohio Golf Association will provide a designated golf ball to competitors in this summer’s Ohio Champions Tournament.

A new event on the OGA schedule, "it will be an event unlike any other."

That's for sure. From the online entry form: 

The Board of Trustees of the Ohio Golf Association has decided to take a stand against the eroding playability of our old courses due to the length of the modern golf ball. The Champions Tournament will be unique in the fact that the committee will identify a golf ball for use by all contestants.

The ball to be used will be a modern ball, with specifications as similar as possible to most popular balls, the only exception will be a lower compression. The ball to be used will be on the USGA’s approved ball list.

Like a tour event, the Champions Tournament will have several stations where ball flight, distance and swing speeds will be measured and documented for the entire field. The purpose is to extrapolate information that will prove useful in the ultimate goal of identifying a tournament golf ball.

If you wish to be part of this exciting experiment, contact the OGA at: tournaments@ohiogolf.org and you may be included in what will be the most revolutionary change in tournament golf since Softspikes.

According to OGA director Jim Popa, the 36-hole event will be played August 22-23 at Windy Knoll Golf Club in Springfield, Ohio, where the Ohio State Mid-Am was played last year. The field will be comprised of Ohio club champions, city champions and local golf association champions, many of whom played the previous year's state amateur.

Alan Fadel, a one-time PGA Tour player and top amateur golfer is chairman of the OGA ball committee and says this is the culmination of several years of research and contemplation by the association.

Though no ball has been selected, both Fadel and Popa revealed that the group is close to selecting one that likely will not significantly favor clubhead speeds over 105 m.p.h. as today's balls tend to do. It will be a 3-piece ball, with a compression of around 70 with a soft cover.

Fadel says they will likely share the name of the ball maker at some point, but both confirmed that the ball to be used is on the USGA's Conforming Ball List.

In phone calls today, both Fadel and Popa emphasized that the impetus behind this project is to create a starting point for dialogue and to amass some information, but ultimately, to find a way to restore relevancy to many of Ohio's classic courses and also to deal with pace of play issues brought on by today's driving distances.

"Here in Ohio we have 800 golf courses and 25-30 just fantastic, world class older courses," said Popa. "And we can't use them anymore."

And he added, "it's time to get this game back where its supposed to be, a game of skill."

The OGA has a history of bold moves that may not exactly be popular in Far Hills (perhaps explaining why so few Ohio residents have served on the Executive Committee). 

The OGA was the first golf association in the country to endorse the use of SoftSpikes.

Could they be influencing another potentially significant trend?

Let's hope so.

The Dilemma Course Officials Face Across the Country

Bob Harig in the St. Petersburg Times writes:

For the second year in a row,  Tiger Woods  made Doral his personal playground, firing at pins and making birdies as if it were a pitch-and-putt course. His 20-under-par performance that culminated in his 48th career victory Sunday came a year after he set the tournament record at 24 under. Five times in the past 11 years, the winning score has been 18 under or lower. Three more times, it has been 17 under.

Those kind of numbers raised questions last week about Doral's viability as a World Golf Championship venue, which the tournament will become next year.

Wind has always been the course's main defense, and there has barely been a breeze, save for a day or so, during the past two tournaments. Technology, of course, has rendered many courses of long ago a far tamer test. But the lower numbers in recent years have been shocking.

Uh oh, Bob didn't get the memo! That's bias there, because after all, there is no evidence that technology has completely changed the game, just speculation. (As opposed to the overwhelming evidence that "agronomy" is responsible for 350 yard drives.)

Here, history suggests it is odd to see such low scores. But what can tournament officials do? Trick up the course to the point of absurdity?

It is a dilemma that course officials face across the country. Protect the integrity of the course against the best players in the world, or let them go at it?

Or they could be like Doral, probably pretty happy to have Tiger Woods as a back-to-back winner. 

Diaz: Big Ball

Regular visitors to this site know I've been calling it flogging for a year now, thanks in large part to Johnny Miller's comments at the 2005 Doral (wow a lot has happened in a year!).  And I wrote about it here, here and in the 2006 season preview, declaring this the year that flogging goes mainstream. Shoot, I even proposed on a book on it exploring the causes, ramifications and other good stuff. (Hint: it won't be coming to a bookstore near you anytime soon!)

Well I feel a whole lot better now that Jaime Diaz writes in Golf World about what he's calling "big ball." I do like Tigerball better (New York didn't!).

Increasingly, the PGA Tour has become the land of driver-wedge.

Not just piping it and pinching it, but even spraying it and flaying it. The majority of players have decided that most weeks, a sand wedge from the rough beats an 8-iron from the fairway. What's different is that more than ever, "big ball" is the percentage play in which even long and wrong can be right.

The movement's founders are Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh who, it's safe to say, arrived at their conclusions independently. (Their forerunner was John Daly, but he made too many 11s to be a model.) Mickelson went overboard in 2001 when he came out talking about trying to birdie every hole and seemingly rebutted himself by eventually riding an educated cut to his first two major titles. But his current experimentation with a 47-inch driver shows where his heart has always been. Singh has never vacillated in letting the big dog eat.

With Hank Haney's encouragement, Tiger Woods has bought in.

And...

Like all drastic style changes in the history of the game, this one started with advances in equipment.

Oh, it wasn't the athleticism that led to the new equipment?

Specifically, multilayered balls that go farther and curve less and 460cc clubheads that increase distance and mitigate misses (Holmes frighteningly claims the driver is his straightest club).

The new tools have emboldened players to attack from the tee, knowing that even if their ball does end up in the rough, their increased strength and the latest square grooves will usually allow them to get the wedge or short iron they have to hit to stay on the green. At the same time, firmer greens with increasingly remote pin positions have raised the incentive to make the approach shot as short as possible.

But maybe if they just narrow the fairways some more...eh, we know that's doing a heck of a job!

Here's the fresh material: 

Statistics from ShotLink further tell the tale. Average PGA Tour driving distances keep going up, reaching 288.9 yards last year, when for the first time, more than a fifth of all measured drives (22 percent) traveled more than 300 yards.

Average driving accuracy keeps going down, reaching a low of 62.9 percent in 2005, with the numbers in the last two seasons representing the biggest single-year drop since the tour began keeping such stats in 1980.

And according to extensive information gathered from their caddies for the past two years, most tour players hit some kind of wedge to an average of at least four of the 10 par 4s on a par-72 course.

An average of 40% of the par-4 approaches are with "some kind of wedge." Wow. Now that's a juicy stat.

But my favorite, the dreaded tennis analogy that is so commonly scoffed at by our Far Hills leadership and manufacturer shills. And this time, from of all people...

But still monster-long Davis Love III said that during last year's U.S. Open at Pinehurst No. 2, he got frustrated watching 7-iron approaches fail to hold greens and successfully switched to a long-ball strategy on the weekend to produce as many wedge approaches as possible.

"It's a lot like the way tennis players today really need to burn that serve," he mused. "Sure, [Roger] Federer has all the shots. But if he didn't have a big serve, he wouldn't be winning. In our game now, it's try to get it down there as far as you can, and if you have a good driving week, you should make a bunch of birdies. If you hit it in the rough, you might get by anyway. It all starts with hitting it long."

As the tour heads to Florida, and soon to the further-lengthened Augusta National, the analogy with a sport made less interesting by the proliferation of power should give pause.

Not one reference in the piece to this happening because of improved athleticism. 

Oh times, they are a changing.