Spin From Dawson

On the post of John Huggan's annual chat with R&A secretary Peter Dawson, reader John G posted something that I think needs further consideration since I glossed over it in the inital posting:

"We now see balls spinning more from 2in or 3in rough than they do when hit from the fairway."

I'm sorry, this quote just doesn't pass the smell test. I can't believe Huggan didn't pounce on this. Has anyone seen any research to confirm this kind of statement?

I would believe that spin rates from 2-3" rough could be similar, but not quite as good as from a normal fairway lie.

But BETTER spin rates from rough than from a nice tightly mown fairway?? C'mon. I'm not THAT gullible.

These guys are desperate to say anything to distract from the real issues.

So do you think the USGA/R&A will actually be able to prove that this has been the case (better spin rates from rough than fairway), and if so, does anyone buy it? 

Huggan On Uihlein: "He has to go."

Remember Wally, I just copy and paste this stuff. In fact, reader David sent this to me, so I didn't find it, didn't write it, didn't think of it. That said, John Huggan has you on his Santa wish list...

2 A NEW LEADER AT TITLEIST: Sadly, the man in charge of the world's biggest golf equipment company is a world-renowned point-misser.

In a position to do the world of golf a favour and agree to withdraw his tacit threat to sue if the game's hard-pressed administrators should make rules that will shorten the vast distances the very best players can propel shots, Wally Uihlein chooses instead to follow a policy that can only damage the sport and, by extension, his own company, in the long term.

Look at some of the nonsense that we already have to put up with: courses covered in long grass and stretched to something like 7,500 yards so as to all but eliminate from contention anyone not physically big enough to hit drives over 300 yards on a consistent basis - goodbye Justin Leonard and Corey Pavin and Andrew Coltart.

All of which is largely down to Uihlein's intransigence.

He has to go.

Way harsh Huggy!

I also liked his plea for more Geoff Ogilvy's and fewer carts in the U.S., but this was especially good:

7 A DROUGHT IN AMERICA: Having not long returned from a visit to Australia, where water is currently in very short supply, Santa would like to see those conditions replicated in the US.

Having sampled fast-running fairways and greens that only enhanced the strategic qualities of the likes of Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and the stunning Barnbougle Dunes, some of the same would do nothing but good in the land of 'hit and stick'.

Instead of wedging on to pudding-like greens from basically anywhere, Uncle Sam's nieces and nephews would suddenly be forced to consider where best to place their drives. Angles would have to be created in order that approach shots could be landed short and run up to the flag.

Thinking on the golf course? What a concept, eh?

Coming In All Shapes And Sizes

Jim Achenbach reports more than you ever wanted to know about all of the new loud, ugly and expensive drivers coming to golf shop near you.

"Instead of ego marketing, we're introducing logic marketing."

Going in the "this is going to get ugly files"...from Steve Elling in the Orlando Sentinel:

That's actually the alchemy of choice for the folks at Bridgestone Golf, who are rolling out a slightly antagonistic national "ball-fitting" program in 2007 intended to take a bite out of Titleist's decades-old dominance of the ball market.

Simply put, the last great sacred cow in golf is about to be paraded into the public square, shot, then ground into hamburger. For the first time, a competing ball company is "outing" a top competitor by shouting from the mountaintop what the industry has whispered among itself for years. To wit, millions of golfers are wasting millions of dollars on balls like the pricey Titleist Pro V1, even though there's minimal chance it will improve their game. In fact, it might be hindering it.

"[Titleist] is the brand they don't have to think about," Dan Murphy, the marketing director of Bridgestone's golf division, said of consumers. "It's an ego thing. Instead of ego marketing, we're introducing logic marketing. There's a quote."

Remember Wally, I just copy and paste this stuff! 

But seriously, shouldn't Mr. Murphy be saying that instead of ego marketing, they're introducing logic fitting? He seems to be saying they are trading one form of marketing for another, as opposed to marketing being substituted for genuine fitting.  

The Ball Problem

Not the golf one, but the NBA one, which ESPN.com's Marc Stein analyzes quite nicely here.

Reading this, it's easy to imagine a similar debacle in golf if and when it becomes clear the USGA will never roll back the ball and someone tries to manufacture a true tournament ball that is foisted upon players.

"Elite players are not afraid of distance advances. None of them are campaigning for rollbacks."

The Belly and Groove Bomb and Gouge boys are still at it, arguing with Chuck about their lack of concern for throwing St. Andrews and Augusta out to the trash heap so that grown men can shop unencumbered by regulation.

From Gouge:

The game advances and we deal with it. Augusta of 41 years ago would not be a test for today's players. Well, we don't exactly know that, but let's assume that it wouldn't be a test. Big deal. It's changed to become more of a test.

I always would love to hear people argue that Augusta has "become more of a test" since the recent changes. Besides the fact it is now one-dimensional off the tee with defined fairways, I wonder if they would say this to the faces of Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Nicklaus, Palmer and Player. Or even Ballesteros, Faldo, Crenshaw and Langer.  Because the insinuation is that without rough it wasn't a full test and that somehow, those old Masters are tainted.

Here's another howler:

Elite players are not afraid of distance advances. None of them are campaigning for rollbacks.

Actually, that's just simply not true. As this list attests.

The USGA has also studied the new drivers vs. the old drivers. Misses three-quarters of an inch off the center of the face travel almost 20 percent farther than they did off a mid-1990s driver. Now, in none of those cases is that distance harming the game (nor does it harm the game at the elite level, as you can't win tournaments hitting it three-quarters of an inch off the center of the face), but taking it away would remove some of that potential for someone actually getting around a golf course. You would take that away all in the name of preserving some tedious anachronism. Good job.

Today's drivers allow for someone to "actually" get around a golf course.

It's a wonder the game survived before today's equipment saved it! 

For more of these profound musings go here, here, here and for my original low self-esteem diagnosis, here.

"Holding onto...the Old Course as tests for elite players out of an obligation to the past is sheer folly."

It's time for another interesting tirade by Bollocks and Garbage Bomb and Gouge who put shopping above even the most sacred traditions. This time a reader wonders at what point the game breaks after sigificant advances render courses obsolete or pocketbooks empty and the Belch and Gulpers joined forces for this gem:

When does the game break? When it refuses to move forward by mindlessly clinging to the past. Amazing how Dr. Naismith let his game advance beyond the peach basket.

The USGA has changed its ball regulations as recently as 2004, and if you read the rule carefully, it may have even been more restrictive. But to your concern over the great venues, I can only offer this:

Myopia Hunt
Newport CC
Garden City
Prestwick
Musselburgh
Chicago GC

Oh but here's where it gets good.

We've had the courage to move past these venues as sites for major championships because for reasons of length, and sometimes more importantly, infrastructure, they stopped being relevant as a site.

Courage? Well, I guess placing consumption over Chicago Golf Club does take courage.

They didn't stop being relevant as significant golf courses. Are their places in history any less secure for not being part of any major championship rota today. No. But holding onto the Winged Foots, the Augusta Nationals and Merions and even the Old Course as tests for elite players out of an obligation to the past is sheer folly. Let's remember that Merion didn't host a U.S. Open until 1934, nearly 40 years after the U.S. Open began. They had the courage to do new and different things back then. Where is the courage to do the same today?

True, it does take courage to move golf's most historic events to lousy new 8,000 yard courses in order to preserve the right to buy a new driver every year. It takes even more courage to put such a thought in print.

"We move on."

In working through my issues as diagnosed by Brandy and Gin Bomb and Gouge over at GolfDigest.com, I went back to read their diagnosis and noticed that a rather spirited debate was taking place.

Since this stuff can only be read in small doses, let's start with Gouge's (Mike Stachura) reply to Chuck, who was pointing out that allowing significant distance increases to occur has the dreaded side effect of leading to unnecessary architectural changes.

GOUGE responds: It is unfortunate that some people like yourself continue to believe that journalistic integrity is dead. But so be it. I have no financial stake in the equipment debate. As for Mr. Tarde's statements in print, well, they are his, they are not always mine. That is the beauty of a public forum. That is the beauty and strength of our enterprise as a magazine. And the only thing I must admit is that the game must adapt. I have no impractical affinity for maintaining the relevance of venues of the past. If a great course from the past is no longer a sufficient test for the .0001 percent of the universe of golfers, that is not a tragedy. We move on. If Winged Foot, Augusta National and even the Old Course get left behind as outdated and irrelevant for championship golf, I cry no tears. That leaves those majestic venues for the 99.9999 percent of us who can still appreciate their greatness. But thanks for your thoughts. The discourse shows the game itself still has meaning.

It's amazing what grown men will do to preseve their shopping privileges!

Apparently, whipping out the credit card to purchase new hope that's scientifically proven to not significantly help 99.9999 percent "of us," is more important to the game of golf than playing the Masters at Augusta National or the Open Championship at St. Andrews.

What makes it all so bizarre, is that even if the game were bifurcated or the ball rolled back to preserve these venues, people will still buy plenty of balls and clubs and the pro game might be a lot more fun to watch.

Here V Go Again...Redux

Golf Digest has posted Mike Stachura's excellent October story on the pending grooves controversy. You might recall that I posted something about this story a while back, but there was no link to the actual piece.

Stachura, who is part of the Belch and Gulp Bomb and Gouge blog team that writes so highly of this site, explores the USGA's preliminary report. In it, the Far Hills gang signals their concern that U-grooves are the cause of all world problems.

One of the key graphs from Stachura's story:

Rugge has repeatedly pointed to analysis of PGA Tour driving-accuracy statistics in his discussions about modern technology. Using a mathematical formula called a correlation coefficient, Rugge shows the correlation between accuracy off the tee and rank on the money list has dropped to zero, as in the two events are completely independent of each another. That's a dramatic change from the 1980s, when driving accuracy was as statistically strong an indicator of success as greens in regulation and putting. "We have 20 years of data from the tour that suggests this might be a problem," Rugge says. "Grooves could be a logical cause of that change. We also have better means of evaluation than we had 20 years ago, and that includes equipment and staffing."

Fairway widths cut by 15-25 yards may have something to do with it too. It will be interesting to see if the USGA addresses this component of the equation. I have my doubts.

Those in the know suggest that given the USGA's mandate for a single set of rules, going after grooves might be a way to put a regulator on distance without affecting average golfers. In a Bomb-and-Gouge world, if shots from the rough were more difficult, an elite player needing to hit it close to the hole might opt for control off the tee over power. Average players, content to hit shots close to the green, might be less impacted by the inconsistency of V-grooves.

Of course this is a backdoor attempt to deal with the distance issue, but more importantly seems a bit dubious when you consider what Frank Thomas wrote in his Golf Digest column about the impact of U-grooves in tournament caliber rough.

From light rough (up to two inches), a ball will spin 40 percent less than it would from dry conditions. This is because the water in grass serves as a lubricant between the ball and the clubface. Because the cover never penetrates more than .005 inches into the groove, which is limited to a depth of .02 inches, this is the only condition in which groove configuration matters. Out of light rough the groove depth can carry away more water and decrease the effects of lubrication on spin. However, from rough of four to five inches, it doesn't matter what type of ball or grooves you are using.

Squaring Things Up

GolfDigest.com's Burp and Gargle resurface after making my low self-esteem diagnosis to blog about winners and losers in the new square driver race.

Adding Bonallack To The List

Despite all that nonsense about 63 degree wedges de-skilling the game, Michael Bonallack has been added to The List of those voicing concern about technology's role in the modern game. And when I get that list going of former golf executives expressing remorse for the lack of action during their tenure, he'll go on that one too.

"The ball got away from everybody."

Yes, add Michael Bonallack to the list of rehabilitating golf executives who wish they'd done more then so we would have the game we have now. It's touching I tell you to hear this kind of remorse, documented by John Huggan in his Sunday column:

"The most fun I've ever had was being secretary of the R&A. I was there when the Open was really starting to take off, in financial terms. We were able to use that money to aid the development of the game."

However, representing the public face of golf's rules-making body outside the United States and Mexico could prove uncomfortable. During Bonallack's tenure, the battle between administrators and equipment companies was joined in earnest, and it rages on to this day.

"The biggest problem was with Ping and the grooves on their irons. That was very unpleasant. I remember sitting at dinner after watching the Walker Cup matches at Peach Tree in 1989 and being tapped on the shoulder. It was a sheriff telling me I was served.

"The writ said they were suing for $100m tripled. They have what they call punitive damages in the United States, and it wasn't only the R&A they were suing, but me personally. That got my attention!

"We had good lawyers, though. They showed that the US courts had no jurisdiction over us. We were making rules for golfers outside America.

"The wider equipment issue was a problem then, and continues to be so today, at the top level of the game anyway. There are a number of things I wish we had done, but obviously we didn't do.

"The ball got away from everybody. The scientists said the ball could go only ten more yards, but they were wrong. New materials kept on coming out, and then along came metal woods. They have taken a lot of the skill out of the game for the leading players. As have the new wedges.

"The shots only Seve used to be able to play with a 50-degree wedge are now routine for everyone who buys a 63-degree wedge. All of that crept into the game without anyone really realising the significance. I wish we could go back, but we can't."

Perhaps sensing that he has already said too much about the one subject that golf administrators tend not to enjoy discussing, Bonallack pre-empts the next question.

"There is no use asking me what I'd do if I was in charge today. When I retired I said I wasn't going to get involved in any of these controversial things. Besides, if I started announcing what I would do, people could quite rightly ask why I didn't do those things when I was in charge. Certainly, we missed some opportunities with the ball and the metal woods, but they crept up on us."

One other sadness for Bonallack is the knock-on effect modern equipment has had on course set-ups. As so many did at last year's Open, he looked on askance at the amount of rough growing on the Old Course at St Andrews.

"It does upset me to see what they have to do to golf courses nowadays. There is no doubt that the modern equipment has caused many good courses to be altered. I hate to see long grass around greens on any course. I like the ball to run off to where players can hit all kinds of recovery shots.

"It is fascinating to watch someone like Tiger working out what shot will work best after he has missed a green. Long grass eliminates all of that, and takes a lot of the skill out of the game."

"Sounds like someone swatting an empty cola can upon contact."

Thanks to reader Bob for noticing this Doug Ferguson description of the square driver K.J. Choi used to win at Innisbrook:

"(Choi) started using a new driver last week that not only is square, but sounds like someone swatting an empty cola can upon contact. Els played with Choi on Saturday and compared the sound to a tuna can attached to a shaft."

Square...Drivers

There was talk early in the week about these apparently ugly new square headed drivers tested out by the Callaway players in Europe, and I mistakenly chalked the articles up to scribblers hoping that Larry Dorman would send them a freebie.

But Mark Reason in the Telegraph dug a bit deeper and suggested this:

And it could become even harder for those Europeans to win majors next season if Tiger Woods takes advantage of the new square-headed driver that has been on show in Spain this week. So far the players have been reluctant to use the new driver in actual competition — although Thomas Bjorn employed it in Thursday's round of 78 — but they have no doubt as to its advantages.

They also believe that it might straighten out the one weakness in Tiger's game. After yesterday's round, Nick Dougherty said: "Thank God Tiger's driving like he is or there would be no point in the rest of us turning up. There almost isn't now. But if he starts driving it again like he did in 2000, then we really needn't bother because his iron play and short game is so much better than it was then." Dougherty believes that Woods might well turn to this new technology to minimise his weakness from the tee. He says: "Well, he looks like a traditional guy … but if he's still driving it poorly next year then I would say yeah, we will see him using it at next year's Open." The point of the square-headed driver that has been developed by both Callaway and Nike is that it doesn't twist as much on impact as conventional drivers — the introduction of super-slow-mo having shown, to the surprise of many experts, that a large proportion of crooked shots are the result of the clubhead twisting from the impact of an off-centre hit.

What's Growing?

While assessing my low self-esteem issues (as diagnosed by bloggers who cower under nicknames!), I keep going back to the gist of E. Michael Johnson's rebuttal to those of us concerned about the distance race in golf.

The game survives when it chooses to grow.  

Okay, set aside the fact that this line doesn't make any sense. Because the game is surviving right not even when all signs point to no growth.  But is "surviving" really acceptable or a healthy long term strategy? Of course not. 

Let's assume Johnson is saying that "growing" distances people hit the ball is good for golf. Now, as you regular readers of this site or The Future of Golf know, this "growing" thing has proven unproductive. Courses are growing in length, they are growing soulless in design, rounds are growing in length of time they take to play, rough is growing in length to compensate for distance jumps, fairway widths are growing in narrowness, cost is growing to play the game, and yet, by Johnson's own admission, longer drives fueled by equipment are not growing much for the average player.

Oh, and television ratings are not even close to growing. The number of rounds played, especially by avid players, has not grown.

So the growth that is occurring is almost entirely driven by deregulation.

As Frank Hannigan pointed out in his letter to this site the day prior to "Bomb's" big stand:

Clubs that want to entertain big events have done what clubs from time immemorial have done when the ball was juiced. They have lengthened their courses significantly and sometimes comically (see the Old Course at St. Andrews which had a tee added on another course.)

As for new courses with thoughts of grandeur, the standard has jumped from 7,000 to 7,500 yards in a short time. That requires more real estate and increased maintenance costs.

The USGA, charged with protecting golf, has caused it to become more expensive.