Week In Review, Jan 29-Feb 4: A Bit of Everything

/
WeekInReview2.jpgJohn Huggan kicked off the week by chatting with R&A secretary Peter Dawson, who elaborated on the R&A's interest in square grooves, prompting reader Smolmania to write: "Do they really think that my 64 degree Dave Pelz wedge is a danger to the game? Or, is it the fact that at age 48 I can now hit my driver 30 yards further in the air than I could at age 35? It's the balls you dopes!"

There was also a story of Dawson traveling to Turnberry soon to help make changes to the storied Open venue, causing Ned Ludd to ask for a minor rewrite of Mike Aitken's story.

Huggan also looked at the future of the European Tour and the state of the PGA Tour, leading to an interesting discussion and post from the Big K.

We tried to figure out Peter Kostis's comments during the Buick final round telecast. There was also this week's driving distance watch and a look at Tiger's flogging at Torrey Pines.

I had some fun looking at the player-architect comments made while visiting their Dubai designs, and reader Jay offered memories of life in Dubai.

News of the Walker Cuppers at the White House prompted a mild college athletics dispute to break out.

Speaking of non-stories, there was the uh "news" that Riviera has requested the 2009 Presidents Cup, but based on the quotes from the PGA Tour rep, this isn't something they are taking seriously.

A story on the lack of regulation in bowling prompted some great insights from reader Al.

Thanks to reader Chris for helping me find Tiger's fascinating remarks about the demise of shotmaking. They appeared in a Jaime Diaz Golf Digest story.

Another week and more thoughts on the PGA Tour schedule, this time the reality hit home that there isn't much "World" in the World Golf Championships.

I thought reader Pete offered a cool, though logistically difficult idea to spice things up: "Make it like the America's Cup in sailing. The year's winner gets to select a host course in his country for one of next year's events. Even more exciting, let the winner pick a course anywhere in the world to have one of the events. Limitations: a pre-set course list to choose from, and you can't choose a course for which you were involved with the design. Now, THAT's got some zip to it. Ernie Els wins, and we're off to South Africa for a tourney! How's that for excitement? Best of all: With only a year's notice, the courses could only be mangled so much, and would not get US Open-ified."

On USGA Jetgate, I wrote about the ramifications of this, Golf World ran a note acknowleding this site's report and I posed questions for those attending the annual meeting, though the follow ups from readers were much better than mine.

Jim Achenbach's Golfweek story on two sets of rules raised a few questions on this end, but it doesn't mean we are not grateful for Achenbach's passion on the issue (and willingness to take chances).

Flashback: WalterSpeak

/

The next two years figure to be entertaining, what with Walter "it's 75% athleticism" Driver officially taking the helms of the USGA today, Feb. 4. (Well, he really really took over this summer as evidenced by this U.S. Open press conference and the early announcement of his presidency.).

A retired lawyer from Atlanta now working for Goldman Sachs, Driver is an Augusta National member who has written extensively on the need to diversify...his law firm. Thanks to reader Mike for this absolutely hilarious exercise in politically correct memo writing.

But it's Driver's press conferences that give us so hope here at GS.com.

Flashback to Saturday at Shinnecock Hills, 2004, where we had Driver's infamous lecture on the "Rodean" hole at Shinnecock. And following 3rd round play, his defense of the 7th green freakishness that would require a stoppage of play the next day.

Q. In the next to last group, I believe it's Maggert played into the front trap and blasted up. Are we reaching the point where that may be the preferred line on that hole?

WALTER DRIVER: I didn't see Maggert so I don't know. You do want to keep the ball under the hole one way or the other. Maruyama in the last group hit the ball to the right of the hole and it stopped nicely in the middle of the green. Mickelson's ball was going right at the hole, maybe even a shade left of it, and then the wind knocked it down and kept it going left. As with all rodean holes, you cannot hit the ball at the hole, you have to hit it out to the side and let the slope take the ball down.

So on a Redan you want to play it out right and let it feed down to the hole.

On a Rodean, you play to the front bunker and wedge onto the green...and hope it stays!

And how does this sound nearly 2 years later and in light of ugly things got Sunday at Shinnecock:

Q. Are you concerned personally that this might be embarrassing for the USGA or for golf, or are you concerned that the public may perceive the U.S. Open as having something of a goofy shot element to it?

WALTER DRIVER: Absolutely not, and I think if they get that impression, that's a gross misdeed on what is one of the best golf courses in the United States. The players have been very positive the whole way. It's just a great experience. They like the golf course, they like everything about it, and one hole -- the wind changed on the field, and at the end of the day it was a very difficult hole. But I think you've got to take into consideration they've played 54 holes, and we've rotten rave comments on 53 of the 54 holes, so I think you need to put that into perspective.

Hey, one unplayable hole out of 54 is no big deal. Get a grip, will you guys?! It's only about to get like, 100 times worse.

Ah Sunday's post round press conference, the day of the alleged "middle of the night" green rolling.

Q. If I change the question, would disappointed also be in there along with surprised in terms of the way the course played?

WALTER DRIVER: I would rather not have had the controversy, but we couldn't do anything about it. You know, you can't be disappointed in something that you can't completely control.

That's right, it was all the weather's fault. Those Southampton breezes are difficult to counteract.

Q. But if you would have watered all the greens last night, that would have eliminated the problem?

WALTER DRIVER: Actually I'm not sure that's true.

He's right you know. All it took was a light watering after a couple of groups went through.

You need to talk to an agronomist. But I was told that there is a difference in the absorption rate on the greens that in order to have changed the greens last night, we would have had to water for about three or four hours and it would change dramatically the character of the entire golf course in a way that we didn't anticipate that we would need to do that. We're not going to start watering at 11:00 o'clock at night based on how much Andy North's hair is blowing, frankly.

And that's why you're the USGA Championship Committee we love and know. 

Q. Does the fact that Goosen and Mickelson were able to play really splendidly at times and shoot decent scores and come in under par suffice, or can this be a bad experience for you guys despite that?

WALTER DRIVER: Well, there's a great quote from Sandy Tatum, one of our predecessors, as the president of the USGA.

Yes, who we don't listen to anymore even though he is widely respected throughout the rest of the golf world. Sorry, continue.

We weren't trying to humiliate the best players in the world, we were trying to identify them. What you identified today is that Goosen and Mickelson particularly played wonderful golf under very adverse conditions. You know, I was walking in the Goosen and Els group, the last group, and when Ernie left a chip shot short of the green on the first hole and double bogeyed the hole, Goosen knocked his in. Who would have ever predicted that they would start off and have a three-shot swing on the first hole? That sets a tenor for the entire game, and frankly, the course conditions didn't have much to do with that particular relationship.

Yep, Tiger "they lost control of the golf course" Woods was exaggerating.

And there was this year's priceless rationale printed in the USA Today:

"In the years when we've had problems," said Driver, noting 1992 when the wind made Pebble Beach unfair and last year at Shinnecock, "the championships have been on the coast."

Winged Foot's near a coast, right?

Attempted Rally Killer

/

Nice rally killer try here.

Tiger is not saying much after a 66, and the assembled inkslingers were trying to get something out of him.

GORDON SIMPSON: That was a 66 today, but after about eight holes it could be 56. Talk about the day for us.

TIGER WOODS: Turned a great round into a round. Frustrating.

GORDON SIMPSON: Did you have that same feeling yourself after playing eight holes today?

TIGER WOODS: I played eight holes really well, and then hit just a wonderful tee shot off of 18. I thought if anything, it would be in the left rough, and so there it goes.

GORDON SIMPSON: But overall, your assessment at halfway?

TIGER WOODS: Well, I'm in position. I'll probably be behind, but again, a little bit frustrated right now.

Q. Do you remember being this downbeat after a 66 before?

TIGER WOODS: Yeah.

Q. Can you tell us when?

TIGER WOODS: Firestone.

Q. Which round?

TIGER WOODS: Last year.

Q. We have been very impressed with the Tiger Woods Foundation in America. I was wondering, eventually are you planning on extending it to our side?

TIGER WOODS: Yes, we plan probably the next two years to venture outside of the United States. We're trying to get our start Something Program developed now. As said earlier, we have 3.2 million kids involved in the program around the country and we'd like to raise that number well over 5 and then eventually broaden it to Asia and then Africa and then throughout Europe.

Q. Will you be doing it in the United States or only in certain areas?

TIGER WOODS: It's all around the country.

Q. After eight holes, what would you have satisfied with, what final number would you have been satisfied?

TIGER WOODS: No bogeys.

Q. But low 60s?

TIGER WOODS: If I would have made par, that's fine. I don't have like making bogeys.

Unlock Golf's Stifling Shackles

/

Jim Achenbach writes in the Feb. 2 Golfweek (no link) that "golf needs two sets of equipment rules" or "simply needs to accept lower scores in pro events."

He says there was a "stupor" at the PGA Merchandise Show because there "was more talk about regulation than innovation."

Achenbach writes that Callaway has long "advocated two sets of equipment rules" while Acushnet head man Wally Uihlein "has argued forcefully for the acceptance of lower scores in professional events."  Actually, if you read here and here and here and here and here, Uihlein has argued forcefully that scores have not changed enough to warrant any discussion of technology regulation.

But here's where I get confused. Achenbach writes:

...the gulf between touring pros and the rest of us has widened considerably in recent years. Touring pros are able to exploit equipment regulations because of their high swing speeds. They can do things with today's golf equipment that the rest of us can't.

So it would seem that changes in the rules to address this last point--this loophole--would be ideal because they would not impact the average golfer. No?

If golf continues to be governed by one set of rules, it will either make the game more difficult for one group (amateur golfers) or make it more easier for the other group (touring pros).

Today's golf equipment is so far superior and easier to use for the average golfer than it was even ten years ago. So how will changes, if properly carried out by the governing bodies, only impact the hack and continue to let the elite player circumvent the rules? 

This would be one of those opportunities for a communications friendly USGA to let Dick Rugge write a letter to the editor. Anyway...

Do we really want the game to grow? Or do we want to preserve the integrity of par in an era of more gifted, more dedicated athletes?

You see, I knew that Hogan was a slacker! Nelson and Snead too. Gary Player...made up all that stuff about working out.

These guys today are just more dedicated and gifted. Why, they fly private jets to the tournament whereas Hogan and the boys took their time, driving in cars, taking in the scenery and you know, lollygagging.

Granted, most of today's gifted and dedicated probably couldn't break 80 with the clubs Hogan used, but hey, they're more gifted and dedicated.

The point of Achenbach's piece is that golf is not growing because of limited consumption possibilities for golfers.

So I ask, is this why people play golf? To shop? 

Are people playing less because the shopping options just aren't what they used to be? 

Questions for the USGA Annual Meeting

/

For those attending this weekend's USGA Annual Meeting in Atlanta, we can only imagine the excitement you'll feel when history takes place:  Fred Ridley officially hands over access to the Citation Vector Card the presidency to Walter Driver.

Though media access to the officers will probably be limited, I thought I'd suggest a few questions should any intrepid reporters get a moment on-the-record with an Executive Committee member or past president. Well, the ones cleared to speak. A few questions to consider:

  • At the 2004 Annual Meeting, Walter Driver attributed 75% of the distance increase to "player athleticism."  Do you still believe this to be the case in light of the widespread distance increases?
  • In 2002 the USGA issued the Joint Statement of Principles which David Fay described as the "benchmark" document related to the distance issue. Since then there have been "significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level," which the statement said would be "undesirable." How does the USGA plan to deal with the "undesirable" situation that golf finds itself in, and what is the timeline for action?
  • Why can't the USGA disclose private jet trips if they were used to conduct traditional USGA business by taking officers to public events like First Tee meetings or state golf association dinners?
  • Were there any trips to Augusta National not associated with Masters week?
Readers, anything you'd ask the governing body if you had the chance?  Please post away...


Oh, To Be A Subscriber, Vol. 1

/

Regular readers of this site may know of my personal struggle to receive golf publications in a reasonable amount of time. Or at all.

logo_golfweek.gifOver the years customer service reps have insisted that the late service is caused by my choosing to live in the far west, or because of nearby postal delivery personnel mysteriously choosing my Golf World or Golfweek to read.

Even Golfdom usually arrives at the end of the month it was intended to arrive. That's a solid 2-3 weeks after east coast readers have sent me their hate email. Frustrating, you know. By then I can't even remember what I wrote that upset them so.

But imagine the shock when I opened my mailbox to find the February 4 issue of Golfweek...on February 2! Lately, the trade publication has been a real favorite of the gang manning the 90403 mail distribution center. Not this week. Maybe it's Tiger fatigue. He's on the cover. (And it's a great issue too).title_progolfweekly_sm2.jpg

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for my first SI Golf Plus of the new year. After three calls so far, no luck. However, Jamiqua (sp?) dared to go where other customer service reps would not. She has written a note to the distribution plant to find out why they can't get me my beloved Golf Plus. She says I may see a Golf Plus in a couple of weeks.

Golf World, meanwhile has been unusually timely since the new year.  As in, arriving the week of its publication date.

I know you all feel so much better knowing all of this.

But I'm curious how many others have trouble getting their magazines in the mail?  And if so, does it send you to the internet for more information?  I've set up a thread under the Technology section if you should feel compelled to post on this absolutely vital topic.

Hey Bill, How About A Caddyshack 2?

/

Crack questions from a scribbler at the FBR Wednesday after Bill Murray (God only knows why) stopped by the press room after his pro-am round.

Q. With Caddyshack and what it's meant to people, people rate it as the Top 5 sports movies of all time, is there a thought of maybe coming back, let's do it again, let's maybe do a Star Wars theme type of deal?

BILL MURRAY: Do Caddyshack again?

Q. Do a Caddyshack II?

BILL MURRAY: They did a Caddyshack II. It's guys like you that made Caddyshack II.

Q. Revise it one more time with all the technology that's out there.

BILL MURRAY: You know, I'm under a doctor's care (laughter). You know, Caddyshack was a great thing. There were some extraordinary people in it, Ted Knight, Rodney Dangerfield, the guy who played the bishop, these are people who have passed away. They were great people, great actors and lots of fun, and it was an unusual thing. Can't you be happy with having seen it and watched it? You want it again? You're one of those guys that wants to make love twice a week. Once is plenty (laughter).

USGA Private Jet Travel, Vol. 5

/

What does the USGA president having access and control of a private jet an issue for the game?

For the moment, let's set aside the cost, even though the USGA is reportedly clamping down on basic expenses that relate to the organization's mission.

Let's ignore the elitist stereotype boost that the jet program provides.

And definitely look past the notion that the organization's officers have used a liberalized reimbursement policy that was meant to attract a more diverse volunteer base and turned it into a perk-for-the-elite program.

Oh, and shelve the other recent Executive Committee boondoggles (Russian Tea Room, Golf Journal).

Shoot, for the sake of this discussion ignore the mysterious nature of the private jet trips, which we are told are all legitimate and traditional USGA business (yet must remain confidential?).

Instead, consider what the private jet travel says about the current USGA Executive Committee culture.

I spoke to an array of past USGA presidents last week in hopes of understanding the institution's history and how the private jet use might be justified.

These calls were made before a directive went out from Far Hills telling past presidents to refer my calls to communications director Marty Parkes (yes, someone actually asked these past presidents--grown men of great wisdom, titans of industry and law--not to speak to little old me!).

One past president refused to talk about USGA business. A few expressed great concern but wanted to hear more facts.  Others did not know about the private jet and were fascinated by the notion of it. (I thought this said a lot about the secrecy of the jet chartering, because these were not exactly inactive past presidents).

And one past president likened the USGA president to a CEO and the executive director David Fay to a COO.

Last I checked, the USGA was a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity and therefore receiving tax-exempt benefits to help it carry out its higher calling: to protect the integrity and nurture the great sport of golf.

The USGA is not a corporation, yet it wants to act like one.

However, if it were a corporation, USGA shareholders and those affected by its policies would be able to get answers to basic questions, and more importantly, require top "executives" to communicate what they are doing on behalf of the organization. And we're not just talking about communications related to executive perks, but answers to basic questions related its mission of protecting the game.

Poor communication clouded by some peculiar sense of Executive Committee entitlement to secrecy will make it nearly impossible for the USGA to be the effective 501(c)(3) that it can be.

It is difficult to envision a scenario where the game benefits from a secretive, self-interested USGA Executive Committee.

Frank Hannigan ably laid out many reasons why the jet program is indicative of the USGA's current direction.

But for me the strangest thing about the lack of communication continues to be the lack of opportunity for member clubs, courses and golfers to understand and therefore support the organization in the face of strong opposition.

In other words, its hard to jump on the bandwagon when you don't even know what the band is playing.

Els: "...called the World Golf Championships, aren't they?"

/

I wonder about it here, it comes out over there. Paraphrasing Albert Brooks's character in Broadcast News of course.

It seems that the lack of "World" in the WGC is on the minds of European Tour players too. 

James Corrigan in The Independent: 

Cue outrage, and not only at the European Tour Players' Committee meeting here at the Emirates Golf Club on Tuesday, but also, more intriguingly, from Woods yesterday. "Of course, the WGCs should be held in other places rather than just America," said the world No 1. "It's our responsibility to play around the world and grow the game as much as we can." Ernie Els, the world No 5, concurred. "It's crazy," said the South African. "They're called the World Golf Championships, aren't they?"

So what can the European Tour do about it? Nothing much, or so it seems if their gloomy statement is anything to go by. "We have communicated our disappointment," it read, "and can confirm that we did offer to host one of the World Golf Championships, but this was rejected."

Seve: The Long Goodbye

/

Norman Dabell in the Telegraph:

It is the news that many were expecting long before now: Severiano Ballesteros, winner of five major titles, Ryder Cup inspiration on and off the course, and once the world's most revered golfer, has announced his retirement.

Don't have to be playing actively to retire? Sorry, continue Norman...

However, before Seve's fans go into mourning, he won't be hanging up his clubs until 2011, when he will be 54. By that time, he reckons, he will no longer have that legendary desire to beat the world, especially Americans, he has had for over three decades.

He's announcing his retirement five years in advance? Cher's farewell tour wasn't this long. 

Tiger: Who's a shotmaker? Who maneuvers the ball?

/

I should have read more "Tiger at 30" stories. Well, at least in the case of Jaime Diaz's Golf Digest look. I should have known Jaime would offer a fresh and newsworthy take. And it helped to have access to an unusually chatty Tiger.

As he often does so well, Jaime lets his subject do the talking:

"I enjoy moving the ball and hitting different shots, and I think that's the way golf should be played," he says. "But the game has changed since I've been on tour. It's hard to make the ball move. You look at the old guys who are or were true shotmakers, like when I played with Lee Trevino at Bighorn and he blew my mind with some of the shots he hit. Then you look on tour and you ask, 'Who's a true shotmaker? Who actually maneuvers the ball or does something different with it?' And there really aren't that many, if any, out here anymore."

"I'd like to see more spin added to the golf ball, so misses would be more pronounced and good shots more rewarded," he said. "Anytime you bring maneuverability back into the game of golf, it's going to favor the better players who understand how to control the golf ball. It still matters in firm conditions or in wind. I always like to shape something in there a little bit just because I'm giving myself a fatter area for playing a miss, because it's not a game of perfect. I'd eliminate the 60-degree wedge and set a 56-degree limit. For one, it would bring more feel back into the game. Because now guys lay up to exact yardages and hit nothing but full shots. Nobody hits half shots anymore. And it would make the short game around the green a lot harder. If guys didn't have a 60-degree or even a 64-degree wedge to save them, you wouldn't see them being as aggressive going into the greens, because they couldn't short-side themselves as much.

"It's all about keeping the skill factor. At the moment, equipment has brought everyone closer together. It's harder to separate from the field, without a doubt. It's a challenge." 

Tiger and his technophobic agenda. A thing of beauty!