Miles Apart

/

In the August 27 Golfweek, columnist Jim Achenbach and publisher James Nugent square off in a debate over distance titled "Miles Apart."

This is the second appearance in recent weeks by publisher Nugent. Writing commentaries is not a traditional role for the Publisher of a trade publication. (Apparently, there’s some silly old notion about the separation of editorial and advertising. That’s like, sooooo 20th Century!)

Anyhow, I’d just like to take this opportunity to welcome Jim Achenbach to the technophobic, biased, liberal, elitist, purist, eh, whatever group. You know, that growing legion of observers who dares to put the integrity of the game over their self interests. And we'll even grant you a special exemption on the rangefinder obsession, Jim. Nice to have you seeing the light, albeit reluctantly:

I don’t want to see golf balls shortened (with lower ball speed) or drivers throttled back (with less velocity off the face), but it seems clear to me that one of these two scenarios will occur. The only other choice is this: Accept longer drives, embrace lower scores, stop complaining. Except that nobody is embracing lower scores. This is why courses keep getting longer and longer. Another consequence of golf’s little problem: Conditions keep getting tougher and tougher.

Here’s the best part and what all too many are (finally) starting to realize.

Perhaps I’ve absorbed the jargon of too many conflicts, but there is collateral damage in this distance war. I know several longtime Augusta National members who say privately they don’t really enjoy playing the golf course anymore.

Now, when I was at Augusta in 2003, it was rather apparent that the member tees were not being moved. Only the back tees. The gap between the two sets was striking. If you were a decent player at all, you’d have to play the back tees. For most of the members, the forward tees were basically the same. So what is making the course less fun for the majority of members playing up? Ah yes, the narrowness. The trees, the second cut, etc…

Anyhow, Nugent proves why publishers should stick to schmoozing advertisers and leaving the writing to his pros. Because a writer could have opposed Achenbach's views without resorting to the pathetic scoring argument to defend an onslaught of changes in the game. Nugent:

Let’s move on to the U.S. Open at Donald Ross’ Pinehurst No. 2. Ross, had he been there, would have nodded approvingly as not a single player finished below par.

Yes, Donald Ross was obsessed with protecting par. Right. So let's see the scoring hasn’t changed, so all is well. That's a new one. Unfortunately, Nugent looks past some rather important issues in making his argument:

Pinehurst #2 was open off the tee, but it was no bombers’ paradise.

21-25 yards is open off the tee? And no bombers' paradise? How come the bombers bombed away without fear of hitting fairway or rough or pine needles? Perhaps because the setup was so silly that they had no choice? Or because they can carry incredible distances?

While it's wonderful that Golfweek is at least debating the issue, they should just leave the writing to their talented writers.

Huggan On World Match Play

/

John Huggan previews the upcoming World Match Play and looks at its past:

None of which should blind us to what was, for long enough, the biggest shortcoming of the tournament. Namely, that the field was shamelessly stacked with clients of the late Mark McCormack's International Management Group. Given that the event was McCormack's brainchild - and pride and joy - this was hardly surprising, but it must be acknowledged that such blatant bias did nothing for the credibility of what could and should have been an even greater event.

Nowadays, things are different. Not only has McCormack gone to the big office in the sky - it's hard not to imagine him up there organising a series of lucrative exhibition matches between Young Tom Morris and Bobby Jones - players qualify for the expanded 16-man field through strict and well-defined criteria. No more does IMG automatically claw back its percentages from every player in the draw.

 

Not Everyone Loves Shaughnessy...

/

Robert Allenby obviously heard all of the raves, and simply wanted to offer a different take on Canadian Open host Shaughnessy.

Just watching on television, it's hard to understand what the fuss is all about. It's tight. The course has way too many trees, particularly of the Christmas tree green committee special type that have no place on a golf course (talk about fluky and obnoxious as Sir Harry Colt would say). The course has lots of matted rough and silly narrow fairways.

There were a couple of neat looking green contours, but the greens looked like they've shrunk a bit over the years, making the contours and modern speeds a goofy looking mix. Oh, and the bunkering is definitely forgettable.

Maybe ESPN's Tom Meeks will bring the Open alive with some crisp weekend commentary.

Solheim Cup Previews

/

SolheimCup05.gifJohn Huggan: "There is something about selecting or captaining golf teams that brings out the absolute worst in men and women."

Lawrence Donegan is less interested in captain boondoggling. Instead,he anticipates plenty of lousy sportsmanship.

The biennial match between Europe's best women players and their American counterparts, begins today at Crooked Stick Golf Club in Indiana, which is good news for both golfing purists and for those who prefer their sport liberally spiced with personal animosity and downright bad manners.

Rubenstein Talks To Ogilvie

/
PGA Tour logo.jpgIn the Globe and Mail, Lorne Rubenstein, focused his column on Joe Ogilvie's thoughts about the state of architecture on the Tour. While Ogilvie wasn't too excited about the " blast flop" shots around the Shaughnessy greens, he did have some positive things to say about architecture and politics.

"First, it’s a novel concept to walk off a green and see a tee," Ogilvie said, comparing Shaughnessy’s walkability to sprawling modern courses that require players to use carts. "The greens are extremely small too, probably smaller than Harbour Town’s (the course in Hilton Head Island, S.C., where the PGA Tour plays every spring). I like that. Why do you need a 50-yard by 50 yard green?

"With new courses these days a developer carries a rope and stretches it 35 yards one way and 35 yards another, and then cuts a swath with no regard for the trees," Ogilvie said.

Asked what else charged him up about the course, Ogilvie had a simple and straightforward response. He’s a thinker, able to distil his ideas into cogent remarks. He’s concerned about matters beyond golf, such as the role of government—he believes the Bush administration should be raising taxes, not lowering them, a view that’s probably not popular among his fellow PGA Tour players--and he’s concerned with the vast amounts of energy we consume. Ogilvie, who referred to himself a "fiscal Republican" and a "social Democrat," drives a Toyota Prius, the hybrid car of the moment.

But back to golf, and Shaughnessy.
"What I’m getting charged up about is wondering why we haven’t been here before. I think you’ll have the highest score relative to par on tour this year, with the exception of the U.S. Open," Ogilvie said.

He also spoke about taking up his position next year on the tour’s policy board. It’s a three-year appointment. He’ll serve with Davis Love III, Scott McCarron and Joe Durant.

"I’m no shrinking violet in the boardroom," he said. "I think we can have an influence on who builds our courses. Tom Doak is talking to the tour about building a course in Milwaukee, and I’d like to see guys like David McKay Kidd (he designed the highly-acclaimed first course at Bandon Dunes in Bend, Oregon), and [Bill] Coore and [Ben] Crenshaw design courses we play. The days of [Tom] Fazio and [Pete] Dye are ending.
"You hear from players every day that they love playing courses like this," Ogilvie continued. "But now the tour is starting to listen."

Shaughnessy Lovefest Continues

/

Canadianlogo05.gif Ken Fidlin in the Toronto Sun talks to a few players and gets some great quotes.

"I love this," Jesper Parnevik said. "It just shows you that today's architects are pretty sad. They're building golf courses that are approaching 8,000 yards and it takes 15-under to win. Then we get these old traditional courses and no one can break par."

Well, that wasn’t quite the case in round 1.

"I wish we could play a course like this every week," John Cook said. "So much of the game has been lost because kids get up today and just bomb it.

Now, is that the fault of architects? That the kids bomb it? I don’t think so! 

The reaction of virtually all the players in the field should be food for thought for the one-track minds who can't seem to come up with any fresh answers to the problems that technology has created for many golf courses.

Instead of just creating more and more monster courses, architects should take a long, hard look at many of the traditional layouts that demand shotmaking, not just length.

Or, someone could actually govern the game so that the courses don’t continue to be asked to mask a job not well done.

Mr. Titleist Speaks

/

An unnamed interviewer at Travel and Leisure Golf lobs softballs to Acushnet CEO Wally Uihlein in their September issue. It’s interesting to see how Uihlein's message has evolved compared to two years ago. From T&L:

The paradigm shift to the power game has resulted from six contributing variables: 1) the introduction of lower-spinning high-performance golf balls; 2) the introduction of oversize, thin-face titanium drivers; 3) improved golf course conditioning and agronomy; 4) player physiology—they're bigger and stronger; 5) improved techniques and instruction; and 6) launch monitors and the customization of equipment. Five of these six variables have often been overlooked by the media and antitechnology pundits in the search for a cause to the industry's so-called "problem." To identify the golf ball as the sole contributor and "solution" is an oversimplification.

Anyone have an idea which of the six has not been overlooked by the media and "antitechnology pundits"? Oh, right, the widget he just happens to be selling, 1) the ball.

Actually, the media has overlooked #6 (launch monitors). And In April, 2003, Uihlein himself overlooked launch monitors and optimization of launch conditions. Is that because it was a more recent phenomenon that has since piled on to the already serious shifts in distance from 2000-2003?

Uihlein's 2003 message and the then variables:

Okay, but 'something' is going on... Fair enough, but 'something' has been going on to increase driving distance for a few years...Recently, professional golf has seen changes with (a) player fitness and conditioning, (b) course conditions, (c) golf clubs and (d) golf balls. In the hierarchy of contributions to improved performance on the golf course, the available evidence suggests the following sequence:

Most Influential Variable The Player.
Second Most Influential Variable The Golf Club.
Third Most Influential Variable The Golf Ball.

This hierarchy of variables has often been overlooked in the search for a 'cause' and a 'solution,' as have golf course and weather conditions which significantly impact the fluctuation in driving distance from week to week.

No mention of optimization in 2003, and of course, no acknowledgment still that the $16 billion golf course industry is bearing or passing down the costs (safety, liability, architectural, etc...) of this "paradigm" shift so that the $5 billion manufacturing industry can market Tour players using clubs that the average golfer can't even buy or get the same benefits from.

Did you notice that for Mr. Uihlein, "the ball" went from #3 of 3 in 2003 to #1 of 6 in 2005? Hmmm...

Since 2003, optimization has become commonplace and has allowed players with faster clubhead speeds to blow right by the Overall Distance Standard without the test knowing it. Minor detail, I know. That's why we have a new test that has the very same loophole, only this time Byron is using titanium instead of persimmon.

But if Uihlein wants to strengthen his legitimate argument that the ball gets blamed too much, it's a mystery why he doesn't point out the role of optimization. Unless of course, he opposed the optimization testing that was scrapped by the USGA in the late 90s?  So what's he worried about then, the USGA calling him a hypocrite? They can't because(A) they have no public relations savvy whatsoever, and (B) they're the ones who dropped the test and thus, the ball (sorry).

T&L's mystery interviewer asked about bifurcation in the 2005 interview. Uihlein answers:

We have never supported the position of bifurcation. Playing by one set of rules, playing the same game, playing the same course and playing the same equipment is what makes golf different. It is the essence of the game. Two sets of rules involving the golf ball, or the golf ball and golf clubs, would result in 1) the longer players on Tour only getting longer in comparison to those who are less long,

Sorry to interrupt here. The players who have the special (natural) talent to hit the ball a long way would regain an advantage that they've lost to players who gained distance merely by embracing technology? Sounds sort of un-free market-like to encourage parity and to complain about an advantage gained skillfully, as opposed to one gained via technology?

Anyway, Mr. Uihlein continues…

and 2) the opening of a Pandora's box with regard to the regulation of equipment at the local, state, sectional and national levels. Golf is not so cleanly a professional game and an amateur game. That is the great thing about golf. That is why our national championship is an Open Championship administered by the USGA. Bifurcation is only seriously advanced by those who think that the game is on some edge of ruination and who thus, as a result of their narrow and biased thinking, feel some form of radical surgery is required.

That biased thinking again. As opposed to financially biased thinking, which is oh so pure. I have no idea what the whole regional association thing is about since we're talking about a Tour ball. This would have been a nice chance for a follow up from T&L and whoever did the interview. Anyway, we continue in the 2005 T&L interview. Mr Uihlein: 

The line in the sand has already been drawn. However, if the regulatory bodies determine that a rollback is necessary and seek to change the controllable variables of ball and club, we strongly believe that you cannot roll back the incremental distance of the past twenty years by focusing on the ball alone or the club alone. Based upon our research, the contributions of ball and club are equally weighted. It is both unfair and impractical to focus on one without the other. The ruling bodies have always been fair and practical, and we expect them to be no different this time around.

Hey, at least Uihlein is now open to the governing bodies looking into the matter and possibly determining a necessary rollback. In 2003 Uihlein wasn’t so open:

What we do see is the delicate balance between Tradition and Technology being preserved without unnecessary intervention.

It was also nice to see that in the current T&L interview Uihlein didn’t rehash his tired and kind of embarrassing technophobic media is to blame schtick. After all, players like Tiger Woods and Ernie Els have made comments on the issue. They've indicated that they feel technology has created some issues. And we know they weren't influenced by the inkslingers of the world.

They Love Shaughnessy

/

From the Brad Ziemer of the Vancouver Sun:

Jerry Kelly was not in the mood for chit-chat, so the PGA Tour veteran was succinct and to the point when asked for his opinion on Shaughnessy Golf & Country Club.

"It's a great golf course and I don't think we play any better on Tour, period," Kelly said after his pro-am round on Wednesday.

And this:

"This is one of the top-five golf courses on the PGA Tour already after just one practice round," said Andrew Magee. "You hear all the rumblings in the locker room and on the driving range and the players are saying this is the kind of golf course we all think we should be playing every week on Tour. This is just fabulous.

"It's just got long holes, short holes, views, trees, dogleg rights, dogleg lefts, it's got a real versatile mix of holes. It's just a beautiful place."

"It seems like you are going to have to have all of your wits about you here," said former PGA champion Jeff Sluman. "It's a shotmaker's golf course, for sure. It's not one of those courses where you can smash it and grab it. If we could play something like this every week, it would be unbelievable."

The premium this week will be on keeping the ball in fairways that have been pinched to an average of 26 to 28 yards wide. Once finding the short grass, players must then hit approach shots to greens that are tiny by PGA Tour standards.

"You have to really drive your ball straight here," said Magee. "Nobody who hits it off the fairway is going to play well this week. You have to hit it straight, you have to hit it below the hole. The greens are fast and it's just a classic golf course. It's a very fair course, but it's just tough."

"You hit it in the rough and I would say from any more than 150 yards out you are not going to be able to get to the greens," added DiMarco. "Fairway is premium this week. The greens are sneaky quick. You get on the wrong side and they can be really fast. It's playing tough."

Now, I don’t want to pick on these guys because they’ve really only seen the horribly shallow modern form of narrow fairway and high rough golf. You know, tightrope walking golf. The kind that's supposed to put a premium on ball striking and ends up turning things into a putting contest.

Anyway, wouldn’t it be neat to hear of just one course where the players say something like this:

"Placement off the tee is at a premium this week. The greens really ask you to place your tee shot depending on the hole location. There isn't much rough, but because the bunkers are such nasty hazards, you don't know what kind of lie you might get. So you really have to be careful flirting with the hazards."

No Balls Yet

/

Thomas Bonk writes in the LA Times that after the USGA sent letters to 35 golf ball manufacturers for shorter-flying prototype balls, the early results are in.

Here's an update: Nothing.

That's right. Nothing has happened. Nearly five months later, not one ball from a single company has shown up at the doorstep of Dick Rugge, senior technical director of the U.S. Golf Assn.

Rugge, who said "eight or nine" of the companies said they would honor the USGA's request and that he expected the rest to do the same, isn't shocked that the needle has failed to move even an inch.

"It takes a while," he said of the process. "It doesn't surprise me. They said they would [submit prototypes], so I believe they will."

Huh. It was widely reported in July that Titleist "complied with a request by the USGA and submitted balls that travel shorter distances than current models."

Since all the manufacturers who said they would cooperate apparently haven’t submitted balls yet, perhaps they've lost the USGA's address? (That’s Box 708, Far Hills, NJ, 07931, attn: Dick Rugge).

Well, the USGA can always test some of the "Distance R.I.P." balls that "Jack wants you to play." I just can't imagine which company made those.