FlogWatch, Tiger At Doral

/

FlogGolf2.jpgTiger Woods en route to victory at Doral:

                               Total      Rank

BIRDIES                        25        1
DRIVING ACCURACY    46.4     T59
DRIVING DISTANCE     304.3     9
PUTTS PER ROUND     28.8      T56
PUTTS PER GIR          1.690     T33
GREENS IN REG           80.6      T1 

There You Go...

/

Somehow I don't envision Hogan or Nicklaus getting the kind of questions Tiger faced after winning at Doral again.

JOE CHEMYCZ: The front nine, statistically the computer said zero fairways but nine greens hit and still 3 under par.

TIGER WOODS: Yeah, I didn't hit a fairway, but hit like I guess

Q. You hit two fairways. ShotLink was wrong.

TIGER WOODS: Okay, cool. (Laughter) 3 under, there you go.

Q. How aware were you of the situation when you were playing 17, did you know you were two ahead?

TIGER WOODS: I knew that there was a board there, and after I knocked it over, I looked over at the board and saw that DT had made par, so I had a two shot lead, yes.

Q. Why were you missing left early? Because you had missed right, your misses had been right all week.

TIGER WOODS: Correct.

 

Oops!

/

A blow for the distance measuring device in competitive play. This went out to college coaches last week: 

Subject: Division I Golf Committee Range Finders

Coach as you are probably aware, the Division I Men’s Golf Committee subsequent to the GCAA National Convention decided to reverse its position regarding the use of range finders as a local rule for the 2006 Division I regionals and finals.  In a memo received by this office on 2/28 from Mike Hermann, Chair the subject of range finders was addressed.  It is our understanding that this memo was sent by the NCAA to all participating Division I head coaches.  This ruling has no affect on individual tournaments during the 2006 spring regular season adopting the local rule regarding range finding devices.

It is our understanding, per the memo, that this issue will be revisited during the NCAA golf committee’s annual summer meetings.  For coaches who host tournaments that choose to adopt the local rule, I encourage use to provide feedback to Donnie Wagner at the NCAA. We have received positive feedback from some coaches whose events have adopted the local rule.  If you would copy our office on any feedback, positive or negative, we will create a clearinghouse for this information.

Apparently in a straw vote at the coaches convention, there were only a couple of hands raised in support of the devices for NCAA Championship play.

There were a couple hundred coaches in attendance. 

More Setup Flexibility...

/

In his latest Golfonline column reviewing the West Coast Swing, Peter Kostis makes this comment:

Speaking of course setups, the PGA Tour needs to give more leeway to the field staff at each tournament to respond to competitive realities and alter the way a course plays. Right now the 54-hole lead is critical! At Pebble Beach, Luke Donald was six shots behind co-leaders Aaron Oberholser and Mike Weir after 54 holes. But the way Pebble was set up that Sunday, with super-difficult pin positions and tees pushed back, there was no way someone was going to shoot a 64 or 65 to make a late charge. That wouldn’t be the case if the PGA Tour field staff had more flexibility. That’s why I love the setup on Sunday at the Masters. If you are playing well, the course can be had and even a six-shot lead isn’t safe.

So what does this mean about the PGA Tour field staff needing more flexibility?

Just typing out loud here, but it sure sounds like Kostis has talked to some of the field staff and that the directive for the Sunday anti-birdie setups is coming from above (that narrows it down to about 400 overpaid VP's!).

Why would those running an entertainment vehicle like the PGA Tour think that a full security lockdown of the hole would make final rounds more fun to watch?

Do they just not get it?

Or is there something else at play here with scoring averages and the technology debate?

Hawkins Blog

/

John Hawkins' new Golf Digest blog is evolving nicely. After several fine but pre-packaged feeling posts from La Costa, his latest dispatch from Doral is the best yet. It's just the kind of on-site, insider look that could make blogging from events a huge hit for the online golf sites.

In it, he looks at the mysterious drenching of Doral before the first round.

Bottom Up Culture

/

I don't believe I've ever linked to a non-golf story, so as David Gray sings, please forgive me. But Patrick Goldstein in today's L.A. Times uses the Oscars to analyze our societal and cultural shift as it pertains to media consumption.

I coudn't help thinking of the Big Break and golf. (That's how I'm saying this is golf related, but really, it's just an interesting read from always entertaining columnist.)

We are now a nation of niches. There are still blockbuster movies, hit TV shows and top-selling CDs, but fewer events that capture the communal pop culture spirit. The action is elsewhere, with the country watching cable shows or reading blogs that play to a specific audience.

And...

There is another, even more radical shift in today's pop culture that is helping to undermine the Oscars and other tradition-bound award shows. For years, the Oscars have mattered because the awards served as a barometer of cultural heft. Just the name alone — the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — has the air of high-minded authority.

Millions of moviegoers who would've been wary of seeing a challenging film like 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" or 1999's "American Beauty" caved in and plunked their money down, soothed by the academy's best picture badge of distinction.

But this elite, top-down culture is being supplanted by a raucous, participatory bottom-up culture in which amateur entertainment has more appeal than critically endorsed skill and expertise.

The most obvious example is "American Idol," which has tested its ratings clout against the Grammys and the Winter Olympics, easily trouncing its competition.

In top-down culture, subtlety and sophistication rule. But like so much of today's bottom-up culture, "American Idol" is far more about aspiration than art. It is a musical kissing cousin of MTV's "The Real World," allowing us to wallow in its subjects' depressingly banal dreams and show biz ambitions.

It's telling that "Idol" devotes much of its airtime to interviews in which contestants rhapsodize about their yearnings for stardom, excitedly recalling their first visit to Hollywood Boulevard or their first trip down a paparazzi-strewn red carpet.

Even though the show, for me, is little more than a tedious night at a karaoke bar, its contestants offering second-rate renditions of familiar pop fluff, it has captured the imagination of its young, largely female audience. They don't need any gray-bearded critics to tell them what they like — they prefer creating their own stars.

Last summer, during the height of Tom Cruise's sofa-jumping meltdown, I asked a friend's 11-year-old daughter her opinion of Cruise. She said, forget about him. "Do you know ["American Idol" contestant] Bo Bice? He's much cooler."

The era of the suffering artist is over, replaced by the insufferably self-confident wannabe. After a thoroughly forgettable rendition of Donna Summer's "Last Dance" the other night, singer Brenna Gethers was asked by Paula Abdul how she thought she did. "I think I did wonderful," she said, full of assurance. "I think the audience loved it, and I think America loved it."

The lone dissenting voice on the show is that of Simon Cowell, who with his British accent and disdain for his fellow judges' slack standards, is a perfect symbol of the top-down culture. Scornful of mediocrity, he's a voice of sanity on the show, often wearily lecturing contestants about their show biz delusions. Still, he seems to be fighting a losing battle, cast as a highbrow scold whose deflating opinions are regularly played for comic relief.

Our bottom-up culture puts little premium on subtle craft, not to mention expert opinion, whether it's Olympic judges or academy members. Young people want to be a member of a group, encouraged by their peers.

It's All About Brand Consistency

/

Carolyn Bivens talked to Golf World's Ryan Herrington about the credential release form controversy (which still has not been resolved with the Golf Digest Companies):

"If you don't have some control of how your image is used commercially, you really can't build a consistent brand," Bivens said. "You're not a good steward. And for 55 years we never asserted any rights to that. In order to more consistently build our brand, we have to have control over the commercial use."

See, she's a good steward, unlike those past commissioners who had no sense of brand consistency. 

But here's the beautiful irony part, printed in the same pages where the vital publication in question featured no coverage of the event due to the uh, brand consistency-driven policy:

"When media assert their rights, I don't think that means fans aren't going to come out and see or attend the tournaments or the games," she said. "I don't think to the average consumer this makes any difference."

Flog Talk at Doral

/

FlogGolflow.jpgIt is becoming a new rite of (early) spring: flog talk at Doral.

While Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson waited on the 18th tee during Saturday's third round, Johnny Miller and Dan Hicks discussed the play:

JOHNNY MILLER: Tiger Woods, the odds of him hitting this fairway are no more than 30%.

DAN HICKS: Tiger, 6 of 13 today, Mickelson 4 of 13 and both those golfers are right in among the leaders here.

JOHNNY MILLER: It’s hard to believe, really when you look at these numbers.

DAN HICKS: Yeah it is.

JOHNNY MILLER: Especially Phil, 4 fairways, come on Phil, you’ve been hitting a lot of 3 woods, 3 metals and still not hitting the fairways.

DAN HICKS: This has been the trend here at Doral. We saw a lot of the same thing last year with Phil and Tiger.

JOHNNY MILLER: It’s not like these guys are missing them by 3 feet or 2 feet. They’re out there pummeling their gallery.

DAN HICKS: Davis Love remarked earlier this season that “our game is about hitting out there as far as you can and you take your chances from there.”

JOHNNY MILLER: Well, that’s why I’d like to see the USGA—if you’re listening—let’s go back to V grooves. And then all of a sudden if you’re missing fairways, you’re not going to take advantage of all these lies in the rough. You’re going to have to play maybe, you know hit it on the face or it’ll float up the face or maybe you’ll get a zinger. That was really a big part of the game of golf. I’m telling it’s been eliminated by these square grooves. Some of these players are switching wedges every two months just to they can take advantage of the rough.

I'm all for investigating the groove thing.

But it's like a kid with a cavities having their dentist suggest a new toothbrush to prevent future problems.

Nice start, but something is causing the cavity besides an old, soft brush.

In golf, flogging started with the newfound ability to carry a ball 300-330 yards, all courtesy of optimized launch conditions. This change, caused by the USGA opting to stick with Iron Byron instead of updated testing, allows elite players to get on a machine and pick up 25-40 (at least) yards without lifting a single weight. It remains the root of the problem. 

It seems that the question of distance off the tee must be addressed before delving into the issue of whether grooves are an issue.

Think of it another way. If the USGA gets rid of square grooves, do you think Tiger and others are suddenly going to start using irons off the tee to hit more fairways on some 7,500 yard course?

Doubtful. 

Birdies...They're A Good Thing

/

I don't know about you, but I sensed that special buzz when watching Doral today. The buzz so often lacking these days on the PGA Tour with anti-birdie setups.

Yes, the golf was compelling in spite of the wild driving and widespread low scoring that has the leaderboard still bunched.  Yet the reaction to the low scoring was all too typical.

''I normally like golf courses where 10, 12 under wins tournaments,'' Rich Beem said, "because I think making par, being rewarded with par should not be a bad thing. It's a good thing. Obviously, when the wind is not up and the greens are soft around here, the golf course plays pretty easy, as you can see.''

Thankfully Armando Salguero in the Miami Herald put Beem's comments into perspective.

And that begs this question: So what?

What's wrong with a course that doesn't become the story, but instead allows the golfers to provide the drama? What is wrong with watching the world's great players post scores and make shots that reflect their status?

Phil Mickelson, among those holding Tiger by the tail in a first-place tie, was the one voice of dissent -- and reason -- when asked about the plunging scores.

''I love the way they have set this course up,'' Mickelson said. ``So what if we see birdies. I think that's great. I think it makes for some spectacular and exciting golf.''

Indeed, the Blue Monster would have more teeth if the greens had not been watered so often this week, or if the wind, which notoriously kicks up in early March, were not absent.

But even if the wind doesn't blow, this tournament is a breath of fresh air when compared to the merciless 2004 U.S. Open at Shinnecock, where golfers and their scores were left strewn on the course like so many divots.

''That's no fun to watch, either,'' Mickelson said.

 

Verplank On The Changing Game

/

At Doral Friday:

Q. There's been a couple of guys in the last two or three years who have gone out looking for extra distance, you don't seem to be one of them; "This is my game, let's see what I do"?

SCOTT VERPLANK: I can't do it. I mean, I can't hit it any harder. I can't swing any harder. I've tried. I don't hit it as straight. I can hit I can use the different golf ball that goes 10 or 15 yards further off the tee, but I can't hit it close to the hole with an iron shot. So I just kind of take what I have.

If I play like I think I can and think I should, then, you know, I don't have any problem with it.

Q. I was going to say, you birdied all of the par 5s today.

SCOTT VERPLANK: Yeah, you know, I think last year I probably finished in the Top 10 in birdies on the par 5s. But I kind of look at a par 5 as, you know, an opportunity. It's obviously a great opportunity to make a birdie, but sometimes if I can't knock it on, then I make sure I put myself in a spot where I know I'm going to be in good shape to still have a good putt at it.

Q. Do you have a strategy on all of the par 5s here or does it depend on where you drive the ball?

SCOTT VERPLANK: Depends on where I drive it, and if it's downwind on some of the holes, I'm going to try to hit a good drive so I can knock it on the green in two. Obviously, I can't knock it on 12, but I can get it up there pretty close where I'm hitting. Sometimes I chip better than some other guys putt.

So it's just it is what it is. I don't think I can hit it significantly further. I've tried. When I do I either hit it crooked or I get hurt. I'd just as soon keep it in the fairway. If I continue to improve, I'll pick up some more distance as the tournament goes on, and as the year goes on, too, pick up more confidence and how solid I'm hitting it. I end up getting it out there far enough to compete.

Q. You said earlier that you haven't really been striping the ball for two days, yet you're sitting here tied for the lead. What do you think that says for how things set up for you this weekend?

SCOTT VERPLANK: Well, hopefully good. I mean, if I continue to make the little strides the next couple of days like I'm hoping I will, you know, I know how to play my game. The way golf has changed, my game still works, just barely, you know. The way they have changed the equipment and the setups and all that, such a demand on bombing it. But there's just barely enough skill left in the game where I can still play (laughter).

Q. It seems like we come into this tournament quite a bit talking about the bombers and the guys that hit it long, and on this course, is that really necessarily a big advantage? You talked about navigational control here a few minutes ago.

SCOTT VERPLANK: No, you don't have to have it. Obviously you can still play. But it's more and more of a factor. If you can hit it straight, I guess I read yesterday that Tiger hit 12 fairways or something. As far as he hits it, that's pretty good. He's going to have a big advantage if he's 30 or 40 yards past me and he's in the fairway, as well.

Most guys don't hit it that straight, though, when they hit it that far.

Torrey Pines (Collateral)

/

Should you ever wonder if your city, county, state or federal government were acting in a peculiar manner, take heart, there's always the City of San Diego and its corruption woes to warm your heart.

It was one thing to try and push through a clubhouse redo for the 2008 even though the golfers don't care. But this, this is downright wacky:

City Attorney Michael Aguirre was stunned to find out this week that the North Course at the Torrey Pines golf complex was being used as collateral to pay off bonds. It turns out he was only scratching the surface.

Aguirre said yesterday he discovered in his review of city documents that the Torrey Pines South Course – the site of the 2008 U.S. Open – and Balboa Park Golf Course are also being used as collateral and could conceivably be lost should the financially troubled city default on the bonds or file for bankruptcy.

“All of the golf courses are at risk, and none of this was told to the public,” Aguirre said. “It's just incredible.”

Under the current terms, more than $42 million in debt needs to be paid before all three courses are clear of their obligation. The bond tied to the South Course was $18 million, as of the end of the fiscal year in June 2005, and the terms run through fiscal year 2011. The North Course bond was $15.7 million at the end of the last fiscal year and goes until 2009. Balboa Park is committed until 2022 on a debt of $9.5 million.

Week In Review, Feb. 26-March 4: Crack In The Code

/

WeekInReview2.jpgJohn Huggan kindly spent a few minutes fielding intense questions for edition No. 2 of Taking Aim.

Geoff Ogilvy won the match play, but once again La Costa's design proved itself to be the most boring arena imaginable for match play, prompting me to regurgitate complaints about the lack of a "match play" course to host the event. And Ned Ludd wondered, "Wouldn't it be cool if the Golf Channel was able to telecast the Crump Cup? Match play at PVGC with the top ranked mid-amatuers would be great viewing."

But we learned new details about the future site of the WGC match play, including how much The Gallery is paying to host the event. That information provided an interesting contrast to the situation at Innisbrook, which is paid to host a Tour event.

Commissioner Tim Finchem talked to the media on Sunday at La Costa, and as always, offered several new terms and roundabout ways of making a simple answer sound, well, not simple.

Talk of the FedEx Cup and the effort to come up with a point system prompted Sean Murphy to point out that "Every race on the schedule is worth the same amount of NASCAR points. There are no "unimportant" races. I love this NASCAR philosophy. Damn, these guys have to put in their time, which allows their fans to actually get to see them more often, in order to receive the Big PAY-OFF."

Reader Macduff came up with a fairly simple points system and his own Top 70 through the WGC Match Play can be viewed here.

While the "Where's the Balance" thread set a new record for posts, Titleist's anonymous commentary calling out the Orlando Sentinel's Steve Elling and his "biased" take on technology led to this commentary by Ryan Ballangee. He followed up with a 19th Hole Golf Show interview with Elling.

And Elling rebutted the anonymous commentary in his weekly golf column, prompting Smolmania to note: "The media's starting to get on board. The question becomes, will the public?"

Speaking of bias against acting for the good of the game, Elling's in elite company. The King spoke out about distance this week. Surely the LA Times has been added to the "biased" list of publications daring to report the comments of a golfing legend who clearly regrets his stance on the ERC driver.

Golf World's Jaime Diaz looked at flogging, bringing the worst kept secret to a mainstream magazine from one of the game's top writers. The secret is really out, and when people look at the cause (distance, bad course setup), will they consider proper remedies?

Crankpot, apparently not content with posting on his own equipment manufacturer sponsored blog, gave us an insight into how the growing minority will be trying to shape the debate: "This - and almost every other article like it - ASSUMES that technology is the sole and driving (pardon the pun) reason behind increases in driving distance in some sort of self-justifying loop. Technology caused the boom in driving distatnce because of technology. Real logic doesn't work that way."
 
On a lighter note, Carolyn Bivens continued her push to make past LPGA commissioners look brilliant with her latest marketing nonsense.

And in the big story of the week that will continue to be discussed for the next month, Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer criticized changes to Augusta National. Reader Steve wrote, "Before the changes, I always regarded AN as the 'ultimate members course' capable of having a major tournament without alterations or the growing of rough."

A spokesman for Hootie Johnson said that "Mr. Johnson has no opinion about their comments. Every past champion is entitled to his point of view." That prompted reader RThompson to write "Listening to Jack and Arnold, and becoming more and more educated by your blog Geoff, it would now seem inevitable that Chris [DiMarco] start experimenting with some of those Vijay length drivers, and soon."

And GeorgeM said, "Hootie should know better. This was not 'every past champion'. These are ANGC members and multiple winners of their little invitational."

Finally, Mark Brown, an important modern day writer whose founding of Links Magazine helped paved the way for someone like me to learn about architecture and write about it, passed away this week. Brad Klein offered this remembrance.