What Will The Top 100 Look Like in 2025

/

When I saw the title for Tom Doak's piece, "What Will The Top 100 Look Like in 2025," I wasn't sure what to expect. But it's really a great piece on a number of levels and Golf Magazine deserves kudos for running it. (Now, about the picture of Sand Hills still labeled as Torrey Pines on the homepage...).

Doak writes:

Another trend worth noting is the small but significant number of courses designed to be walked. With the advent of the golf cart in the 1960s, many architects became convinced that walkability was no longer part of the equation of building a great course. Holes were pushed ever farther apart, toward the best bits of land, or to make room for houses. Nevertheless, there still isn't a course ranked among the world's greatest that is very difficult to walk. Augusta is perhaps the toughest hike.
And it was great to see Doak finally come out and use his newfound fame to join the technophobic agenda crowd:
The only thing that can stop this trend is something that will change the list even more significantly -- a continued growth of equipment technology that will make today's elite courses obsolete. We architects shake our heads watching modern professionals, who seem to hit the ball considerably farther every year. It forces us to design for a moving target.

So far, the equipment technology change hasn't had an earth-shaking effect on the Top 100 Courses in the World. Classics like Shoreacres and Maidstone, weighing in at less than 6,500 yards, still stand tall. The past masters of design understood that scoring is controlled at the green end, not the tee end. But the classics are on the defensive. All but one of the top ten courses has been stretched by more than 100 yards since 1985. (Cypress Point is the lone exception.) A lot of them have run out of room to extend, and those that haven't (like Augusta National) are starting to look entirely different. Something has to stop changing -- and soon -- or we'll no longer recognize the courses and the game we love.

 

TGC on Lengthening Debate

/

The September 13 The Golf Channel's "Golf Central" looked at the issue of lengthening courses in response to stunning Tour driving distance increases. They first talked to some Tour players and asked them how they would respond to 350 yard tee shots. Thanks to TiVo, here's what they said.

Mark O’Meara: "Narrow it by more tree lined golf courses, because the big guys can play out of the rough, but they can’t play out of the trees. More treelined, smaller greens, more rough around the greens. So if you miss the green it’s more penile. Not necessarily is lengthening the right answer.

Yes, he said penile. I checked four times.  I'll let you look up penile in the dictionary. And who said Freud didn't know what he was talking about?

Chris DiMarco: "I think they need to add bunkers where they were supposed to be. Maybe on the right on a hole add another bunker 25-30 yards ahead of it, to where now the guys hit to the left of it."

Mark Calcaveccia: "I think basically it’s just narrow fairways and high rough is the best way to do it. And firm, fast greens. Look at Merion, how difficult that course played for the U.S. Amateur guys, I don’t know what we’d have shot there, but I don’t think it’d be that low."

Yes, it's all about score prevention. The game should turn inwards on itself (Max Behr's line).

TGC returned to set up an interview clip with 84 Lumber Classic host Joe Hardy, who has lengthened his course each of the last three years at a reported cost of $7 million (!?). He has also narrowed the Mystic Rock fairways and shrunk several greens down. Here's what Mr. Hardy had to say:

They make these heads bigger on the drivers. They make them fast. They keep saying they’re going to limit it. They’re not going to limit it. These places that are tucked in, I don’t know what they’re going to do. But here we have so much space. We got 2,800 acres. So we just move it here, move it there, move it there. So it’s really neat. So it’s very contemporary with the way these guys can hit the ball now.

Ah but that was just the appetizer. TGC then had Rich Lerner standing with Steve Smyers in front of a studio flatscreen with helicopter fly-bys of classic courses rolling during their chat. Smyers, who will be joining the USGA Executive Committe in February, is already right on the organizational talking points.

Rich Lerner: Steve, you’re okay with golf courses at 7,400 yards for the Tour professional. Why?

Steve Smyers: For the elite player I am. What we want to do is test, uh, give the ultimate examination and to do that we need to put a variety of clubs in their hand.

RL: So you want Tiger and Vijay in the course of 18 holes to maybe hit a 4-iron into a par-4.

SS: Exactly right. I think that’s the whole key and I think that’s why I’m embracing what’s happening in the game today. We as designers have the ability to design real short, interesting, spectacular short holes. Par 4s in the 300-330 yard range. Follow it up with a beautiful long par-4 of 500 yards.

Sorry to interrupt here. But he's saying embracing the lengthening of courses to 7400 yards and up, but then saying we should build short par-4s too in the 300-330 yard range? Don't you love how the 500-yard par 4 as become acceptable. Please continue...

RL: There are critics, guys like Nick Price, one of the greatest of the last 20 years. Nick might say, it’s all brute force now.

SS: You know I look at Nick Price. To me, he is my hero. He and Nick Faldo, Lee Trevino. Great shot makers. Could really work the golf ball. And you know, he’s right, I mean, the 240 yard lineman in the NFL is a, a thing of the past.

RL: Alright, forgetting the Tour pro for a moment. Average players. I just played a course in Pennsylvania. Public course named Willowbrook outside of Allentown, P-A that was 5,800 yards. It was absolutely a blast to play. My friends and I came away and said we need more courses like this. It would improve the pace of play. Might just be more fun.

SS: I agree. But we’re talking about two different types of players. The average drive on the PGA Tour is 285 yards. The R&A did extensive study, as well as the USGA, on what the average club player, weekend player, how far they hit it. They’ve done these studies over the last fifteen years. Handicaps range from 5-12, the average tee shot for the player was 202 yards. For almost every year. So we’re talking about two totally different caliber players.

RL: When people say, "I hit it 250, 275, 300 yards…"

SS: They don’t hit it as far as they think and their average is not nearly as far as they think.

Seems to me that Smyers is saying we have two different games. So don't we need two sets of rules?

Also, does anyone wonder how this divide occurred in the last five years?  Just guys working out? 

The segment was out of time, but a nice follow up for Smyers would have been: "Why do we build most new courses for this Tour game that is totally different than the game being played at the Willowbrooks of the world?"
 

How They Do It

/

The Golf Magazine panel (see post below) works from this criteria, posted online but not printed in the current issue beside the list:

Our 100-strong rating panel includes major championship winners, Ryder Cup players, architects, leading amateurs, administrators and others respected for their golf knowledge. Each is asked to assign a letter vote, from A+ to F-, to each of the 575 nominated courses they have played. A’s are reserved for the world’s top 10 courses, F’s for those that don’t deserve to be on the ballot. Write-ins are permitted. Consideration is given for strategic design, playability, setting, tradition, condition, examination, etc.

Examination? This is golf. Not school. It's supposed to be fun. Right? Why can't Fun be a category? Sorry, continue...

The panelist determines the importance of the criteria in each case. Votes for courses played during the past five years are weighted 1.5 times those that have not. Architects cannot vote on their own designs. Once the panel’s nearly 25,000 votes are received, letter grades are translated into numbers. Finally, we simply do the math by dividing a course’s total by the number of panelists voting on it. The result is the most respected ranking in the world.

They were going strong there until that last sentence. I still like the setup. But only prohibiting architects from voting on their own designs isn't enough. Golf administrators should be prohibited from voting on courses they host events at. Photographers shouldn't be allowed to vote on client courses they're also paid to photograph, etc...

And architects also should not be allowed to vote on older courses they restored/renovated, which I believe they currently are allowed to do (ex: Rees Jones can vote on Torrey Pines, Tom Doak can vote on Chicago Golf Club, etc... I bet you can guess which example I think poses a legitimate conflict of interest). 

Golf Magazine Panel 2005 v. 2003

/

sep05.gifThe 2005 Golf Magazine lists are up at Golfonline. Still working out the kinks. They have a photo of Sand Hills on the homepage with a caption that reads "Torrey Pines, No. 60 on the list."  

Since there's very little going on in the golf world, I'm going to take my time dissecting this a bit more.

Posted online is the 2005 panel, the lists, the criteria, etc. The article on panelist Leon Wentz is also posted, but I have been assured that Wentz (who recently finished playing the 2003 Top 100 World) did not see the current list early because he was trying to finish off the 2003 list. The article did not mention which list Wentz was trying to play, I'm told we were supposed to know it was the 2003 list.  But this being the 2005 rankings issue, naturally I (and many other readers who emailed) assumed that the article was on Wentz conquering the current list.

Anyhow, it's worth looking at the panel because there is a bizarre mix of non-golf industry architecture aficionados and golf establishment types with conflicts-of-interest ranging from minor to raging (architects, developers, photographers, PR rep, magazine staff, USGA, golf association execs, etc...).

I see several of the people on the list who are not connected to the golf industry. They really make an effort to study and contemplate their votes, discuss the architecture with their peers or the architects themselves, and in general take the list very seriously. Which makes me wonder why they can't just have non-golf industry aficionados.  Because let's be honest here, how many courses other than their own or those they played in tournaments did Jack, Arnold, Gary, Annika and Karrie rate last year?

Anyhow, I've underlined the new panelists for 2005.

George Bedard, Canada
Judy Bell, Colorado
Prakash Bhandari, India
Michael Bonallack, Scotland
Niall M. Cameron, Bahamas
Malcolm Campbell, Scotland
Steve Carr, England
Paul D. Caruso, Jr., Montana
Bob Charles, New Zealand
David M. Clarke, New York
Tom Clasby, California
Tom Crow, California
Robert E. Cupp, Georgia
Bob Currey, Massachusetts
Gordon Dalgleish, Georgia
Michael R. Davis, New Jersey
John R. Dempsey, North Carolina
Tom Doak, Michigan
Luke Donald, England
Joann Dost, California
James J. Dunne III, New York
Pete Dye, Florida
David B. Fay, New Jersey
Jim Finegan, Pennsylvania
Marvin A. French, Arizona
Dana Fry, Ohio
Jim Furyk, Florida
Gary A. Galyean, Florida
Sergio Garcia, Spain
Christopher Goodwin, Canada
Kendra Graham, New Jersey
John Harris, Minnesota
Gary Hart, Arizona
Philippe P. Hermann, Switzerland
Alan Heuer, New York
Arthur Hills, Ohio
Richard Hills, England
Bill Hogan, Texas
John Hopkins, Wales
Tony Jacklin, England
Peter Jacobsen, Oregon
Terry Jastrow, California
Rees Jones, New Jersey
Bill Jones III, Georgia
Sunil Kappagoda, Connecticut
Taizo Kawata, Japan
James Keegan, Colorado
Ortwin Klang, Germany
Norman Klaparda, California
Samm Klaparda, California
Mike Klemme, Oklahoma
Herbert V. Kohler, Jr., Wisconsin
Laurence C. Lambrecht, Rhode Island
Jeffrey Lewis, New York
David Mackintosh, Argentina
Joe Marengi, Texas
Peter G. Mathieson, England
Thomas McBroom, Canada
Peter McEvoy, England
Thomas J. Meeks, Indiana
Brian Morgan, Scotland
Ran Morrissett, North Carolina
Jay Mottola, New York
Jack Nicklaus, Florida
Frank Nobilo, New Zealand
David S. Nolan, New York
Michael O'Bryon, Florida
Kazuyuki Ohashi, Japan
Kazunori Ohtsuka, Japan
Peter Oosterhuis, Arizona
Arnold Palmer, Pennsylvania
John Paramor, England
Harrie P.W. Perkins, Texas
Hal Phillips, Maine
Gary Player, South Africa
Tom Ramsey, Australia
Luke Reese, Illinois
Ron Riemer, Illinois
Cabell Robinson, Spain
Justin Rose, England
Michael C. Roseto, New Jersey
Lorne Rubenstein, Canada
Pat Ruddy, Ireland
Mitsutaka Sado, Japan
Isao Sato, Japan
Bill Shean, Illinois
David V. Smith, California
Annika Sorenstam, Sweden
Donald Steel, England
George Sweda, Ohio
Charles H. Tadge, Ohio
Oliver A. Thompson, Ohio
Sho Tobari, Japan
Daniel C. Ulmer, Jr., Kentucky
Fred Vuich, Pennsylvania
Karrie Webb, Australia
Tom Weiskopf, Arizona
Christopher P. Wightman, New Jersey
Michael Wolveridge, Australia
Walter Woods, Scotland

2003 panelists not on the 2005 list: Robert Trent Jones Jr., Henry Kravis, Joe Luigs, Masa Nishijima.

Final count: panel is up to 100 (still not nearly enough). 5 women, 4 on USGA payroll, 18 architects (including photo-op player architects) and 3 free lance photographers. 

Paper of Fluff

/

nyt-paper.gifSo is it me, or does this read like something from one of those glossy giveaway rags loaded with cigar ads and stories on $500 golf shoes:

Golfing on business trips, that sweet escape from the frustrations of the road, can be full of surprises. It also may be on the increase. Exactly how many executives golf on business trips is not tracked, according to the National Golf Foundation in Jupiter, Fla., but Rand Jerris, director of the United States Golf Association Museum and Archives in Far Hills, N.J., said the numbers had swelled in recent years, a trend he attributes in part to the proliferation of "best" lists in trade magazines and books.

"The same competitive spirit that drives business spills over" to golf, Dr. Jerris said. Hotels are also making it easier for guests to sneak off to the links. Several years ago, Fairmont Hotels and Resorts introduced the use of free TaylorMade clubs at many of their properties to members of their frequent-guest club.

This swell article is from the New York Times. The paper of record says there is an increase in golf travel among businessmen, with not a single number offered to back up the claim.

Ah, but the sourcing was impeccable.

Even exclusive private clubs have seen an increase in business travelers. "I see many more people flying in for the day to do business deals," said Michael R. Yamaki, the corporate officer of the Riviera Country Club in Pacific Palisades, Calif. With the boom in private-jet travel, he said, the portion of membership applications from outside the local area has surged to about 35 percent today from about 3 percent 15 years ago.

The story goes on to tell golf trip war stories and leaves you saying, ah, this is why they say a once great paper has lost its way.

CBS Extends PGA Championship Contract

/

pga_t1_logo.jpgAh the news we've all been waiting for:

"The PGA of America is excited to continue its relationship with CBS Sports by presenting the Season's Final Major to the American public," said Warren. "The PGA Championship has consistently featured the strongest field in major championship golf and has produced some of golf's most dramatic finishes and CBS Sports has been there to capture the drama and history of one of the greatest events in golf."

Season's Final Major capitalized? Maybe they should trademark that. But what happened to Last Shot at Glory or whatever it was they were calling it this year?

"CBS Sports has been a part of The PGA of America family for years," added Awtrey. "We are excited about extending this wonderful partnership and telling the PGA Championship story to golf and sports fans around the country."

Telling the PGA Championship story to golf?  And:

CBS Sports will produce five hours of high-definition coverage each of the final two rounds and will air a maximum of eight minutes of commercials per hour.

 Yes, eight minutes of commercials, 18 minutes of plugs and all leading nicely into reruns of 60 Minutes.

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.