"Hitting It Straight Will Be Key"

That was the jump header in Sunday's LA Times. The Thomas Bonk story in question offered an extensive look at Augusta National's recent changes.  It's a nice summary of the new look course, with some of the recent comments from Tiger and Couples. And thankfully, it lacks the excessive glorification we've read recently.

If nothing else, the club has helped Augusta's moribund non-Masters tourism industry by having all of these writers down for a looksy (ah, but do they get to bring their clubs?!). 

On this "hitting it straight" thing. I'm thinking that within a decade, maybe they'll paint a straight line down the center of what's left of the fairways, and deduct a stroke for those who toe the line, and maybe add strokes for those who dare to non-conform by playing to sides of fairways to gain approach better approach angles, etc...

Nice metaphoric quality to this, don't you think?

Year In Review Vol. 7, SI Roundtable

In May, Sports Illustrated convened David Fay, Brad Faxon, Larry Dorman and myself at Rhode Island Country Club for a roundtable discussion hosted by Jeff Silverman. This meeting of the minds appeared in SI's stand-alone U.S. Open preview issue.

While David Fay's "middle of the night" Shinnecock Hills green rolling didn't make the published version in its entirety, but it did give me a Golfdom column (and served as a reminder that the USGA needs much better overnight security...assuming this tale of woe is true).

Should you have nothing else to do today: we pick up during the 2004 U.S. Open conversation and why the USGA was consistently messing up course setups...

SHACK: Doesn’t the problem still come back to scoring – low scoring and the USGA being bothered by that. I mean Jeff Maggert said last year that he knew after those two rounds – and the words he used – were I knew that they were gonna panic. And it just seems like with all the changes in the game that the USGA is still clinging to par. And I know you’ve said that that’s not the case, but it seems to me the only way to explain the things that went on, and I’m sorry, but Saturday was to me, watching it on television, was as embarrassing as Sunday because that’s when it started to go bad…

FAY: Um-hum…

SHACK: And it just seems so apparent that the scores bothered everyone. I’ve spoken to all the people who rolled the greens and it was clear that Friday night that was the feeling, that these guys have gone low for a US Open. Seventeen were at par or better.

FAY: Um-hum…

SHACK: And I don’t understand why the USGA clings to that notion when courses are in better shape, players are better, technology and equipment are just better, so scores should naturally evolve.

FAY: Well, they have naturally evolved. And we’ve always taken that position. Look at Ben Hogan. Two of his four US Opens he won at seven over par. Seven over par. And the one he lost in a playoff he was seven over par. You look at his average over his salad days other than at your home club, Riviera, his scoring was very high. We’re not gonna cling to par. But we want par to have some meaning. And on the rolling, we can go on and on about that, but that’s our fault. The rolling took place. It was not done at our request. It was done in the middle of the night.

SHACK: In the middle of the night?

FAY: In the middle of the night.

SHACK: Really?

FAY: In the middle of the night.

SHACK: That’s (laughs)

FAY: In the middle of the night.

SHACK: You make it sound as if Carl Spackler came out and rolled the greens in some vendetta.

FAY: It would be nice if Carl did write a book on the US Open. It would be pretty juicy.

SHACK: Well, everybody there that I’ve spoken to said that wasn’t the case.

FAY: You haven’t spoken to the right people.

SHACK: Well, the other problem…

FAY: In the middle of the night. I can understand they were upset that they were blamed…

SHACK: As they should be…

FAY: …on Saturday by certain voices within the USGA. So on Saturday night that was when the rolling took place.

Faxon: Without your knowledge…

FAY: I want you to know, that was without our knowledge.

SHACK: Saturday night there was another rolling…

FAY: It was excessive rolling on Saturday night. Saturday night. Not Friday night.

SHACK: Cause I was watching on television when you came on and said that by mistake it was rolled, and NBC had a shot of the seventh green and they were out double-cutting it. And my mom called and she said that doesn’t make much sense does it if the green got too fast. Why are they out doublecutting it again. To anybody watching, it just seemed like the whole thing was out of control. And I guess it’s just hard for people who want our national Open to be something special to see this sort of chaos.

FAY: Well, it’s sort of in the eye of the beholder, too, Geoff. As I said, it got out of control, but it didn’t get in our minds that far out of control. Now you’re gonna say, Oh, now wait a minute, now. But I’ve said for many years, and Brad, I said it to you I remember up at that dedication up at Buttonhole, because I’ve been consistent on it, once a year, and this goes back in the history of the US Open, it has always been a very punishing examination…

SHACK: Um-hum…

FAY: Whether it was at Myopia Hunt Club at the turn of the century, which was far tougher than any other course, whether it was Oakmont, with the Fownes rakes in the bunkers, whether it was Oakland Hills in 1951, or Olympic in ’55, or Winged Foot in ’74. You can go on and on. But the US Open has always been probably the hardest golf tournament. We’ve got majors. We’ve got four or five majors. But that’s always been its imprimatur. It’s the hardest golf tournament. If you look at it, when we’re all growing up, there’s more strain strain on the faces of the players. It feels like they’ve been in a fist fight. You would say I was embarrassed by it, and believe me, we did not want to see what we saw on Sunday. But a lot of people are saying, Man, I loved that. But you don’t want to see that every week because these are great players. Look, it wasn’t that far away from what we wanted. Seven – everyone focuses on that. I was just as concerned about one. Actually, one in some ways bothered me more than anything. There were shots, where don’t have a wild slope to the green, where once they were hitting and they looked like they were finished, they had come to rest they rolled on for 25 yards.

SHACK: Well, that’s where Ernie gave up, according to Tom Meeks.

Faxon laughs.

FAY: Well, anyone who’s an athlete knows you don’t say that. That doesn’t even warrant response.

Year In Review, Vol. 6: Shot of The Year (21st Century?)

Happy holidays to all. My small gift to you, courtesy of Tiger Woods. If you haven't seen the epic Masters shot in a while, here it is, in its entirety.  I hope the cameraman who zoomed in on the ball got a bonus this year. And nice job by Verne Lundquist too.

Here's Tim Rosaforte writing about the shot and where it ranks in Tiger lore. 

Year In Review, Vol. 5: The Rankings

An odd numbered year means Golf Digest and Golf Magazine roll out their rankings to a chorus of...well, this year to "what were they ingesting" and "you have to be kidding." The Golf Digest list seemed to generate its fair share of discussion, but mostly their decision to drop the "Tradition" score and move to an Ambiance category exposed just how bizarre the panel's taste can be. Which may have prompted this fall's Golf Digest Panelist Summit.

After years of credibility and solid lists, the leadership of Gary Galyean took the Golf Magazine list into shaky territory, with too many USGA hard-is-good-voters and many questions that needed to be raised (here, here and here). Golf's downfall was best exemplified by the ridiculous inclusion of a Korean course that had offered way too many people free rides to come play it.

Golfweek, which offers a yearly ranking, kindly added Rustic Canyon to its Modern list and continues to mature, albeit with minor hiccups ( compared to Golf and Golf Digest) and into the most reliable of the lists. If it only would not publish yearly, it's credibility would skyrocket.

The year in rankings was rounded out by the Golf Digest Best New lists, which proved their prophetic worth when two former "Best New" first place winners  earned Best New status again when they made the magazine's Best New Remodel just a few years after being recognized for their original design. The two courses have positioned themselves nicely for the first ever competition of Best New Remodel of a former Best New Remodel.

My Holiday Gifts...

For Peter Dawson, Tom Doak, Hootie, Jack, Brian Curley, The Donald, David Fay, Tim Finchem and the Golf Digest panel. All, in good Golfdom fun of course.

Elin's Christmas Gift...

Thanks to reader John for this WSJ story on Tiger's new home purchase. Jupiter Island here they come.

If his latest real-estate deal goes through, Tiger Woods won't have to look far for a golfing buddy. The game's all-time money winner, 29 years old, has agreed to buy a Florida house on Jupiter Island, in the same gated community as fellow golfers Greg Norman and Jesper Parnevik, people with knowledge of the deal say.

Mr. Woods has a special history with Mr. Parnevik -- the Swedish-born star introduced the American golfer to model Elin Nordegren, whom Mr. Woods married in 2004. (Ms. Nordegren had worked as a nanny for Mr. Parnevik.) A purchase price for the house couldn't be determined, but it's listed for $18 million. Mark Steinberg, an agent for Mr. Woods at International Management Group, declined to comment. The 16,000-square-foot house has six bedrooms, and the 10-acre property includes a beach cottage and guest house and tennis and basketball courts. Jupiter Island, about 25 miles north of Palm Beach, has about 600 residents and has long attracted families from the Doubledays to the Fords and duPonts.

Mr. Woods made an earlier real-estate deal this year. In February, the three-time Masters champion bought land at a golf-club development under construction in Jackson, Wyo. The size and price couldn't be determined, but people familiar with that deal said Mr. Woods bought an "estate home" site. Such properties run from 2.5 to five acres and cost from $1.2 million to $4.5 million, according to a sales director at the development. Mr. Woods also owns a home at a private golf community in Windermere, Fla., near Orlando.

Stephen Garofalo, founder and former chief executive of fiber-optics company Metromedia Fiber Networks, agreed to sell the Jupiter property to Mr. Woods. Mr. Garofalo, who didn't return calls seeking comment, paid $12.3 million for the property in 2003, public records show. Metromedia, a onetime telecommunications highflier, filed for bankruptcy-court protection from creditors in 2002, emerged from proceedings in 2003 and took the name AboveNet.

Tait On Walking

Golfweek's Alistair Tait is thinking of no longer playing courses that require carts. And he's not buying the idea that carts speed up play.

The Game of a Lifetime

Thanks to readers Paul and John for the heads up on Katherine Rosman of the Wall Street Journal and her story about getting her stepdad on Augusta National, titled "The Game of a Lifetime." It's a free read today on WSJ.com, not sure about tomorrow though, so hit the link now.

Like almost anybody who has picked up a golf club, my stepfather has always had a fantasy: To play at the Augusta National Golf Club. The legendary Georgia course is home to the Masters Tournament, and admission is strictly limited to its closely guarded roster of members and their invited guests. Neither I nor my stepfather knew a soul there.

So when I said I wanted to surprise him with a round of golf there, everyone I talked to said it would be impossible. Why would an absolute stranger invite a 70-year-old suburban Detroit real-estate developer to Georgia to tee off at one of the world's most secretive and exclusive clubs?

Year In Review, Vol. 4.5: News of the Weird II

I forgot to add this strange trend in amateur golf (and maybe in USGA or R&A events soon!?): sponsors for amateur tournaments. That's right, this year saw the introduction of the Tropicana Essentials Ladies British Open Amateur.

With the USGA facing some hefty executive travel expenses and hiring a CMO in 2005 (yes, that's right, a CMO), how long is it before we get the Cialis U.S. Senior Amateur, or worse, the U.S. Open Presented by Mastercard?

Year In Review, Vol. 4: News of the Weird

So many strange stories this year. Of course, nothing is as weird as this one involving David Letterman, but in the world of golf, this stuff was just plain strange:

There was Retief Goosen's Nissan Open DQ for missing his pro-am tee time (turns out, he got out of town just in time, because it pretty much never stopped raining after that. Thomas Bonk did a nice job covering the Goosen situation.

Goosen had been host of a party for Grey Goose vodka at Riviera Country Club on Tuesday evening. During the party, he told reporters, "I have never really drunk vodka, but I've had a few tonight. Somebody is going to have to drive me home."

The drinks being served at the party were Cosmopolitans and Lemon Drops, both made with vodka.

In a press release passed out at the party, Goosen was quoted as saying, "I have long enjoyed the smooth taste of Grey Goose vodka and am pleased to have the brand join my team of supporters as I play on tour. This will be a lot of fun."

Then we had the USGA clarifying its stance on gender reassignment. "The movement in this direction is inexorable," said David Fay. Oh yeah!

For us architecture junkies, we learned from Tony Cashmore that Cypress Point really is a Seth Raynor design.

Also in the design world, there was the Tour's weird handling of the TPC Avenel redesign, which was delayed and now is reported to be a $24 million job, even though an architect has not been selected. Joe Ogilvie later let it slip in Sports Illustrated that Davis Love has the job, and Joe thinks it is a conflict of interest since Love is on the policy board. Stay tuned...

In February we had Jakartagate, where video pretty conclusively showed Colin Montgomerie bending the rules en route to a key world rankings points boost.

Then we had those slow play antics at Congressional featuring Rory Sabbatini playing half a hole ahead of Ben Crane, and later stories looking at Crane's lethargic pace. Vijay had some fun lines about slow play at the President's Cup:

VIJAY SINGH: Yeah, just damned slow, just too slow. It took me it took us 5 1/2 hours to play. Getting up in the morning and playing with them, you know, it's okay when they are hitting the ball, but around the greens it just took forever to play. Towards the end, it took its toll.

At the British Open, we were introduced to movable OB, which John Huggan noted was "the first time So it is that this will be the first Open in history to be played on four courses at once — the Old, the New, the Eden and the Himalayas putting course."

In the fall we saw the just plain weird Michelle Wie pro debut and DQ. Topped by the course setup antics and  bickering at the Australian Open, summed up nicely by Mike Clayton.

Then there were our stars. Phil Mickelson skipping the Tour Championship and now the Mercedes. But he takes the prize with these comments reported here just recently on how he would handle the next Tour TV contract.

But for me, the #1 weirdest story of 2005 remains Tiger's decision to leave after completing play Sunday night at the PGA Championship, with a chance to make a playoff the next day (he missed by two shots). For someone so meticulous in his planning, so intelligent when it comes to how he plays, and quite subtle in the gamesmanship department, it continues to boggle the mind that Tiger passed on the opportunity to be warming up Monday morning, sending a not-so-subtle hint to Phil Mickelson and friends: "I think you are such dogs, I'm just waiting here for the playoff to begin."

 

Year In Review, Vol. 3: Best Rally Killer of 2005

While going through the archives, there were plenty of great rally killers determined to get a player off an interesting subject to ask a meaningless question for a sidebar he or she was planning to mail in by 3.

There were many fine candidates, but for some unknown reason this one was my favorite. Perhaps it's the combination of Chris DiMarco admitting something players rarely acknowledge: the replaying of key shots over and over again, including in this instance, one played by a competitor (Tiger's 16th hole chip-in, Masters Sunday). You sense DiMarco is opening himself up to the assembled newsmongers, and since he's one of the more articulate and opinionated players, you hope they'll let him talk this one out. Maybe even follow up with a few more questions. No.

It was a perfect chance to ask about golf in the Olympics.

CHRIS DiMARCO: A couple days after The Masters, it was tough. I relived that chip a lot in my head, my chip, not so much his but my chip on 18, knowing that that could have gone in and could have changed everything. I was proud of myself that I put myself in position to win.

Q. As someone who's played in the Presidents Cup and the Ryder Cup, do you think there is a place for golf at the Olympic games?

And Yet Another Augusta Story

Glenn, my invitation must have gotten lost in the mail!

Oh well, looks like Bob Harig is on the preferred list at Augusta and he returns a favorable albeit lukewarm verdict on the course changes. It's lacking the gushing superlatives we've read elsewhere (and thankfully, there's no mention of restoring the rhythm).

Augusta Photos

GolfDigest.com has posted a photo sequence of the key holes changed at Augusta National. Naturally, the 7th looks silly (big architectural insight of the day: when standing in the middle of the fairway and your view of  the greenside bunkers is choked out by trees, it's time to call in the Oakmont tree-removal squad).

But the new 15th tee looks good at least (now about those pines down the right...).

More interesting are Ron Whitten's photo descriptions. I've read a similar tone in the past from various publications, mostly from the club. I think it's a troubling tone if you respect the vision of Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie.

For example, on the changes to the 7th green:

The green has been redesigned to create a possible right-rear pin position; the right-rear portion has been lowered one foot, so that players will no longer be able to fly it past front-right flag locations and let the slope spin the ball back to the hole.  

Design flaw repaired! Players hitting balls to spots and letting them feed down? Just so wrong. Wait, that same thing allowed for Tiger's 2005 chip-in on 16, which was what, maybe one of the ten greatest moments in sports television history? Top 5 Masters moments? Unforgettable. Goose bump stuff when you see it now shotmaking? No, those kinds of feeding slopes must go!

In fact, the more I think about it, the more that such feeding slopes are the essence of Augusta and exciting tournament golf. (You know, the crowd cheering a slowly rolling ball down the slope.)  

This accompanied the photos of No. 11:

Several clusters of dogwoods are to be planted in the left-hand rough to eliminate the possibility of bailing out to the left and having a relatively easy second shot from the "rough" or pine straw.

See, those Jones and MacKenzie guys didn't close all the gaps. They opened the door for someone to bail out and have a "relatively easy second shot from rough or pine straw." (Because of course it's so easy to hit a ball out of a flyer lie or off of pine straw, over water, with 15 million people watching...oh, and the Masters possibly on the line!).

You see, today's master designers and course setup gurus plant scrawny Christmas trees to plug these design leaks. They close all the gaps. That's why they're masters.

PS: while doing some research the other day, I came across a photo of the old No. 10, pre-Perry Maxwell's 1937 redesign. I think it had to be one of the all-time coolest, wackiest strategic holes ever built (which would explain why it had to be changed into today's pretty-but-boring two-shotter, it was probably too eccentric). But that's a post for another day (and when we get a scan of the old pic). 

What Will Phil Say Next?

Shocking as it may seem, I don't TiVo Golf Hawaii hosted by Mark Rolfing. But at JWH's suggestion I recorded the current edition. And boy was it grand.

Attention golf writers who use this free-of-charge transcription work: I will cite your stories when the IRS questions my TiVo write-off.

Okay here's the deal. Mark Rolfing, interviewing Phil in Hawaii during November's Grand Slam of Golf, starts by saying how the 2007 television contract is the talk of the Tour. Then...

MARK ROLFING: Have you been part of the planning process?

PHIL MICKELSON: No, I haven’t. I was asked maybe a year and a half ago what I thought about certain ideas and I don’t necessarily support what’s going on, but what I feel needs to happen is we need to have the top guys playing against each other more often. And we’ll do that 2 or 3 more times. So that is a good thing. But in my opinion it’s really a half-hearted attempt at what we need to do which is force the top players to play against each other on specific tournaments 12 times a year in addition to the four majors, the Players Championship, and the three World Golf Championships. And that would give us 20 events where the top players play against each other.

But Mark, what happens is the sponsors love it because they know what they are buying. They are paying more money but are guaranteed that the top 100 guys are going to play against each other. The fans love it because that’s what they want to see. And television loves it because that’s what they want to buy. But the reason it doesn’t happen is because the 150 guys on Tour who are fighting to keep their card have such a strong voice that it stops anything like that going through. So 150 guys control and can stop what would ultimately be good for the Tour in my opinion, and that’s to stand up to the top players and force them to play these specific events, but reward them by having a larger purse because you can sell it to sponsors, television and the fans a lot easier.

MARK ROLFING: How would you force top players to play in these 12 tournaments, let’s say?

PHIL MICKELSON: Well the Tour needs to be run independent of the players. And run as an entity just like Nascar does with their drivers. They force them to play certain events and you stand up and say, “look, if you don’t play these 12 events, and you don’t play the four majors and you don’t play the Players Championship and the World Golf Championship’s, you don’t have a card next year. You can’t play any of them.” Of course we’re going to play.

MARK ROLFING: Phil, if you were talking to the player on the PGA Tour that’s 100th on the money list instead of me today, how would you convince them that it might be the best thing for them, what you are talking about.

PHIL MICKELSON: Well I shouldn’t have to Mark. The commissioner needs to step up and make the statement that this is in the best interest of the Tour to have the top guys play against each other more often and it shouldn’t be his concern to try to justify it to everybody. He needs to stand up and run the Tour like a business, in the best interest of the Tour, in the best interest of the sponsors, television and the fans. And not have to justify it to other players or even the top players. He should stand up….and when it’s run like a business, we all need to buy into it and go with it. That includes for me being told what tournaments I have to play in. I’m fine with that because it’s in the best interests of the Tour, and I’m rewarded by it because we’re able to sell those tournaments for more money and ultimately play for a larger purse.

If you want to see this for yourself, the program airs a couple more times (listed here) between now and Christmas day.

And I've started a thread under Discuss Tournaments to chat about Phil's comments.

Year In Review, Vol. 2: Deane Beman

February was highlighted by Deane Beman's aggressive stance on the golf ball and his thoughts on the state of the USGA ("The time for equivocating has passed.")  It started with a letter to USGA President Fred Ridley (his comment: "These are concerns he has raised before."). Around the same time appeared Beman's must-read Golf Digest interview with Bill Fields Peter McCleery (sorry Peter!).

After the letter, I interviewed the former PGA Tour Commissioner. Here are some of the more interesting Beman comments from February 10, 2005:

Golf courses and golf architects are making courses harder and harder and that’s the essence of the issue. The beginner finds it impossible. We’re driving away literally millions of golfers. The next generation of players are going to hit it 330 to 360, there’s no question in my mind about it.

There’s a guy named Gerry James. Gerry James competes in these long drive contests but he’s a pretty good player. On Monday after the merchandise show in Orlando he stood on the sixth hole at Bay Hill, which is the par-5 that’s moon-shaped around the lake, and carried it on the green, 345 yards, and was putting for 2. And there’s where this is headed.

I’ve seen it coming. I’m 66 years old and I hit farther than I’ve ever hit it. I never in my whole career of playing, ever worried about a guy hitting it past me. You’ve got to accept the fact that if he’s bigger and stronger than you, and he plays better than you do, he’s going to beat you. But in my younger days a guy could hit it 30 yards past me, my personal observation was that two or three times he’s going to miss hit it and he’s going to make a bogey or double bogey and I’m going to beat him. But when you put in the hands of the modern player a ball that goes so straight and doesn’t curve, what you’ve done is change the wonderful balance that the game used to have. It’s a slugfest.

I think we ought to cooperate with the manufacturers and be part of the solution, but if they want to play hardball, the answer is that the players could make a lot more money if the Tour manufactured and sold its own golf ball, set all of the revenue aside so there’d be no profit motive in it for the Tour, and give all the money to the players. And the players would make more money.

You want a golf ball that identifies skill, not strength.

If you look at other sports they have absolutely controlled the primary instrument of play, and the primary instrument of play is the ball. If baseball allowed aluminum bats or took the ball that had the same liveliness and changed it so that it was aerodynamically more stable, you’d completely change the dynamics of baseball. The pitchers would be phenomenal. If you put a more aerodynamically stable ball in their hands, they’d do things that they can’t do now. And once it was hit, it’d clearly be out of the park. They haven’t allowed that to happen.

The problem is, it started with the square grooves. That started diminishing the value of hitting it in the fairway when square grooves came out. That’s been more than doubly augmented that goes so straight that plays into the hands of the guy who swings the fastest. That’s where we are.

Now you play a golf ball that curves and you swing it 128 mph and you use a 46 inch driver with one of these graphite shafts, the answer is, you better not miss it. You’ll find out if you don’t have a repeating golf swing or if you don’t have the high level of skill that the players used to have, then you find that all of sudden you’ll be going back and doing what Jack Nicklaus used to do, swinging a 42 1/2 inch driver. He wasn’t swinging a 46-inch driver. His was 42 1/2  inches. So a lot of the technology that allows the guy to use a 46 inch driver with lighter shafts and titanium heads are marginalized when you put spin out there.

You don’t have to give the players old wooden headed clubs. [Spin] would return enough skill and enough sanity to the distance factor that it would bring the whole game back into better balance than it is. I’m not saying turn the whole clock back. I don’t think that would be good.