Lorne: Kite v. Pate On Equipment Influence

Lorne Rubenstein writes about an interesting Champions Tour roundtable, where surely to the dismay of the Tour, a technology debate broke out between Jerry Pate and Tom Kite.

"If you take 20 years ago, [and look at] the best 20 players in the world and analyze their swings," Pate, the 1976 U.S. Open and Canadian Open champion, said, "the swings are better today. They're on plane more and they repeat more often."

Kite cited the equipment as the main reason players are hitting the ball crazy distances. "You've got equipment out of control," he said. Kite, the 1992 U.S. Open champion, blamed the ball in particular, arguing that it's got out of hand.

Pate didn't disagree that the ball is an influence, but argued strongly that personal influences are also significant and even the more important factors. He said today's players "have better training habits, there are better orthopedic surgeons [to help golfers recover from injuries], they work out every day, and they have better personal habits.

"The golf-course conditioning is much better," Pate added, "and yet we still pick on equipment."

See, someone buys into those talking points!

The day moved to Liberty National, where Rubenstein monitored play.

Pate teed it up with one group on a long par five, and ripped his drive nearly 300 yards. He laughed and tried to argue that he's in better shape than he was 20 years ago. Pate did look in good shape, and he's recovered from injuries that kept him out of competitive golf for some 15 years.

Pate then hit his next shot with a hybrid club just short of the green. He carried most of a lake to hit this shot of about 240 yards, and acknowledged that he was hitting the ball a long way past where he did years ago. Ah, an admission.

Kite came along a while later, and dropped a ball at the right edge of a fairway, 175 yards from the hole, with water intruding most of the way. He launched a 7-iron way up in the air, over the water, with a little draw. It finished 15 feet from the hole.

"Could you have hit a 7-iron that far and so high in your 30s?" I asked Kite, although I guessed the answer because Kite was a low-ball hitter and maxed out at about 155 yards with a 7-iron then.

"Not even close," Kite said. Asked whether the loft on his 7-iron then was the same then as the 7-iron he uses today, Kite answered, "My lofts haven't changed."

He added, "When Jerry said it was less about equipment than other factors this morning, I turned to Rick [Rick George, the Champions Tour president, who was sitting beside Kite] and told him I didn't believe that. I don't care how fit a player is or how good his swing is, he couldn't hit it further in his 50s than in his 30s."

And...

The winner of the debate? Kite, no question. One more thought about distance: Hitting the ball into the stratosphere didn't help Tiger Woods make the cut in the U.S. Open last week, and Phil Mickelson hit only two of 14 fairways the last round and couldn't conjure a swing to put the ball into the last fairway. He double-bogeyed the hole from the boonies, lost his one-shot lead, and handed the tournament to Geoff Ogilvy.

Conclusions from this corner: The ball is indeed the culprit for the distances Tour players are getting. Thankfully, control still matters, at least on U.S. Open courses with rough-like grass as high as a cornfield.

But something's wrong when it matters hardly anywhere else.

USGA Press Conference at Newport

Sadly, most of the talk centered around the flooded course and the dreadful forecast for Thursday. Still, a few items of interest:

Q. We had the first major here in the U.S. in 1895, and we waited nor 100 years for the U.S. Amateur. Why did it take so long to come back here? I know it's probably before your time?

DAVID FAY: Thank you for that.

An innocent mistake. The bow tie that makes him look older.
DAVID FAY: And I think that Winged Foot confirmed that a great old golf course can still be a great championship site for contemporary golf. It's remarkable that 32 years ago the story line from Winged Foot was the massacre at Winged Foot, the unfairness of the golf course, the trickery of the golf course. The winning score was 287. Two weeks ago the winning score was 285 and the greatest criticism I heard was that the greens were a little slower than they expected. There was no comment about fundamental unfairness of the golf course or it's not playable or it's not rewarding good shot making. It certainly punished errant shot making?
You see, the winning score doesn't matter to them. Nope, not a bit.

 

The "Playoffs" Teleconference

Tim Finchem and a bunch of other suits convened in New York to plug the Fed Ex Cup. And as is usually the case, the Tour shows little imagination in creating their "playoffs." Dan Hicks emceed.

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   Thank you, Dan.   Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to an announcement that we hope embarks us on what we hope will be a new era in golf.

This morning in Washington, D.C., we had an annual breakfast, our fifth annual breakfast with 16 or 17 members of Congress to talk about the progress of the First Tee Program. 
I wonder if anyone asked about the demise of the Booz Allen?
As I was coming up here today focusing on this announcement, it occurred to me that here we are again announcing a new initiative in New York, and one that I think with great enthusiasm we will be able to look back on a few years from now and recognize the same kind of progress in what the FedEx Cup is trying to do with what we've seen in First Tee.   The difference is, of course, that today we're not starting from scratch the way we were with First Tee.   We started with a tremendously successful platform that communicates the game of golf.

And if you nodded in understanding at that last sentence, you need help.

When we concluded the elements of what we wanted to do in basic form, we thought that we needed a sponsor company and a partner that had two major qualifications.   First of all, we needed a company with a brand that could integrate easily across the entire PGA TOUR platform, because each week we did not want to take away from the importance of our title sponsors.

Because Lord knows, the fans tune in looking for brand platform integration.

So let's hear from the suckers ponying up $35 million a year for these exciting playoffs.

MIKE GLENN:   Thank you, Commissioner.   It's a pleasure for us to be here today, especially given our long-standing relationship with the PGA TOUR.   It's been wonderful being the title sponsor of the FedEx St. Jude Classic for so many years, and I have to tell you it's a bit bittersweet to give that up, but clearly we are moving to a new level and we are very excited about that.

It would be an understatement to say that this is a significant day for sport of golf and the PGA TOUR, and I can tell you that I speak on behalf of hundreds of thousands of employees and contractors of FedEx to say that we are very happy to extend our relationship with the PGA TOUR and to be the sponsor of the FedEx Cup.

Sports marketing has been a very important part of the way that we've built our brand and supports our brand for many, many years, and we truly believe that the FedEx Cup will be a very unique and special addition to our portfolio.   The Cup is very consistent with our brand values and reliability, excellence, precision and leadership and we're looking forward to 2007 when we begin the FedEx Cup.

And we're looking forward to hearing you and the Commissioner mentioning reliability 450,000 times over the life of the contract.

Here's where it gets just plain sad.

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   Let me turn to focus on the second part, which is our version of the playoffs.   As we looked at it, we had a number of questions to be answered.   How can we structure playoff that is created big events?   We wanted each week to stand on its own and be a huge event in the market it's played and for all of our fan base of 110, 112 million Americans to really focus on it.   When I say "Americans," I should go beyond, because so many of our players today are international; it's really a world fan base.

Good salvage job there Commish.

But that challenge and the additional questions of creating a series that every player felt the need, the want and the enthusiasm to play in each and every week to create a series of weeks that is unheard of where all of the players would play head-to-head in four straight weeks created a number of questions.   I want to try to answer those questions, but before I do, let me introduce a little piece of video.   NBC was kind enough to ask Jimmy Roberts to take a few minutes and try to put the notion of playoffs for golf in perspective.

          (Video played).

(Commissioner gives two claps, The Clapper turns lights back on)

Oh sorry, it was that or poking fun at Jimmy Roberts.

But let me show you for a second how the playoffs set up and how they work.   First of all, the players play again through the regular season and they get to a seeding point.   So when they are seeded, the points they have earned to date go away, and they now are awarded a certain number of points that they will carry into the playoffs, and they will earn points each of the four playoff weeks.   The screen you see is the reset point distribution.

So if Stuart, who is in fifth or sixth place right now this year, and we were doing the Cup this year were to progress and end up in first place, he would have 100,000 points.   He'd have a 1,000-point lead over the No. 2 player, and you can see the distribution right on down the list.   The philosophy here is that Stuart should be awarded some benefit for the play that he has had all year long.   He's won tournaments, he's worked hard, he's played a well and he's got himself into that No. 1 seed position.   But it is not an award that precludes him from significant competition.   Therefore, the intervals between players are fairly slim.   And it creates on one hand more or less a home-field advantage, if you will; in some sports you can argue whether there is real a home-field advantage, versus a very volatile system where a lot of players go into the playoffs with an opportunity to win.
If you have any idea what the home-field advantage thing is about, please let me know, because I have no idea what he's talking about.
When you consider that each of our four events is going to have a prize money each week of $7 million, it means that if Stuart is in that first position or in the fifth position at the end of the seeding process, the regular season, he's looking at the next four weeks being worth $63 million in total payout.   And it is that amount of money, coupled with everything else going into the Cup, which we think sets it apart and makes it very, very special.

Yes, to the players. But for the fans?

Here's the Barclay's dude, Bob Diamond, who puts Finchem to shame with some of this MBAspeak.

Let me give you a sense, just a couple of things about why this is important to an organization like Barclays.   You know, first and foremost, it's who do we think we are and how do we think of ourselves.   And you heard Jimmy Roberts talk on the video just a few minutes ago about golf being a game of tradition, it's really one of the world's oldest, most traditional games.   Well, in Barclays, we first took to posit in the City of London in 1689.   We have been in the banking business over 300 years, over 100 years here in the United States.

When we think about ourselves, we think about tradition, we think about strength and we think about excellence.   But we also think about the importance of being around the globe of our global footprinting business.   Another thing that's important to us is our U.S. build.  

(Finchem scribbles "footprinting" on yellow tablet, circles it twice.)

Time for questions and where the bad news arrives. It seems the playoffs aren't really playoffs.

Q.   Most playoffs that I know don't include every member of a league, but in yours, everybody plays in the first three tournaments.   Have you thought of reducing the field after all the points were accumulated leading up to the first playoff tournament?

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   We have, and we thought about it a great deal.   We've concluded that with the first playoff event, the Barclays Classic, we assume that every player in the field will have a mathematical chance to win.   We could reduce it the next two weeks, but we don't feel the need to do.

So now, we may change our mind and probably will change our mind on some things as we go forward as we analyze it each year, and right now, we're of the view that the players are really focused all season long on getting into the playoffs and if they played hard enough to get there, they should have the opportunity to participate.
Yes, but you see in real playoffs, eventually we send people home.
Also, we recognize that winning is what is most important in the playoffs, and it's harder to win a tournament when you have more competition; I think virtually any PGA TOUR player will tell you that.   So at this juncture for those reasons, we are going to stay the course, and we'll see as we evaluate it in the out year.

So I don't think it's unusual that we should have a system that's different from every other sport in this respect.   The key question is:   Does it work for us and does it work with the culture of our sport.

Culture, nice, but it's no footprinting.    

Q.   I'd just like a clarification, as I understand it, you won't be eliminating any players until you get to the TOUR Championship; is that correct?

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   There will be players, Jerry, who fall below a line of mathematically that are able to win the Cup.   Each week that line will descend.   But the field sizes, if you make it to the playoffs, you can play all three of the first three events in 2007, that's correct.

What that's going to create, obviously, is a player who no longer has a mathematical chance to win might play lights-out for two weeks and move well up into the points list from a distribution standpoint.   Now, that doesn't bother us, and it's another something for people watching to pay attention to.

Or not. Wouldn't this work better if they eliminated players once they had no mathmatical chance to win the Fed Ex Cup?

Q.   Commissioner, the number going into Barclays, is that 144, how many players?   And the 2007 BMW will begin the third day following Labor Day observed; will that be the position of the BMW each year?

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   That is correct.   There will be 144 players off of the FedEx Cup point list eligible to play at Barclays, and the same 144 players eligible to play at the Deutsche Bank Championship and the BMW Championship.

Yes that's right, players who will be losing their full status get into these playoffs.

If, and let me just further clarify; if a player is ill, he would not be replaced.   If a player cannot play for whatever reason, he would not be replaced.   There are no sponsor exemptions.   There is no open qualifying.   There is no alternate list.   You must make the 144 finishing at Greensboro to be in a position to play one of those three events.

Wow, rigorous standards to get into these playoffs.

What a farce.

Final count from the press conference: 3 platforms, 13 brand(s), 2 brandings and 3 cultures. Oh and 1 footprinting

Bubba Talks

Thanks to reader Barry for this Jason Sobel Q&A with Bubba Watson.

Q: Would you be in favor of ever rolling back the golf ball to make courses more playable?
A: The sad thing about that is, there's a lot of great ideas out there, but the problem is, if you roll back the golf ball, you're still going to have the longest hitter and you're still going to have the shortest hitter. And there's nothing you can do about that. There's going to be a longer and shorter hitter, no matter if you all use the same clubs. There's always going to be a shortest and a longest, so it's not really going to affect anything.

As you can see, he's given the issue much thought and consideration. Reminds you of Ogilvy doesn't he?

Q: Do you think some courses are becoming obsolete now that players are hitting wedge into every hole?
A: There's a lot of great golf courses that we play that are tough and they're old golf courses. You think about the U.S. Open. All they did this year was add rough and the greens are fast. It wasn't tricked out, it wasn't sloped too much; it was just tough. Westchester is just tough, and Colonial -- a lot of the older courses are just tough and you didn't have to add any yardage, you didn't have to do anything. If you've got rough, some overhanging trees, it's a tough golf course.

All they did was out rough and the greens aren't fast, and it wasn't tricked out. I guess it hasn't occurred to Bubba that rough and fast greens are forms of trickery?  

"Something To Talk About"

fedexcuplogo.jpgThat was the PGATour.com headline linking the press release announcing the FedEx Cup. Everyone's excited.

"It's an exciting time for golf," Tiger Woods said. "It's certainly going to be more exciting for everyone, not just us as competitors who will be bucking heads against the best more often, but also for the fans."

I'm sure he's retooling his '07 schedule as we speak.

"I think for the spectator watching on television or even coming to golf events, there is going to be a new buzz," Ernie Els said.

I guess Phil wasn't available for comment.

The FedExCup will offer $35 million in total bonus money, one of the highest totals in sports. Following the winner's share of $10 million, second through fifth place will receive $3 million, $2 million, $1.5 million and $1 million, respectively.

You would hope those dollar figures will get their attention. And for the money quote...pun intended:

"The FedExCup is setting a new standard for excellence for the PGA TOUR and ushers in a new era for professional golf," said T. Michael Glenn, executive vice president of Market Development and Corporate Communications at FedEx. "With our shared attributes of reliability, excellence and leadership, the FedExCup is the perfect addition to the FedEx sports marketing portfolio." 

The scary thing is, he was proud of that quote. Probably worked on it for weeks.

Check out the points breakdowns. No big shockers except that puny amounts available for events opposite the WGC's or  majors. 

The Western No Longer

I actually got to read this Ed Sherman column on the death of the Western as it appeared in the Chicago Tribune. And I wonder how many people at the Tour realize what the "Western Open" name has meant to pro golf? Doesn't matter now.

Officials, using well-rehearsed lines, tried to explain why Chicago golf fans shouldn't feel jilted.

"We really don't look at it as abandoning Chicago," the PGA Tour's Tom Wade said. "We look at it as really upgrading and bringing a top-level, world-class event to Chicago."

How much of an upgrade do we need?

Sure, the September field will be deeper, but Tiger Woods and Vijay Singh are Western Open regulars and Phil Mickelson is an occasional visitor.

Are the crowds, which average in the high 40,000 range on the weekend, going to be substantially bigger because Retief Goosen is in the field? I'd rather see Woods every year and take a pass on Goosen.

The fact is, a strong local sponsor never would have allowed the tournament to be moved.

It remains a mystery why, after Motorola bowed out in 1999, a Chicago-area company never stepped up to support the event.

Now BMW, for a substantial $12 million to $14 million per year investment in sponsor costs, has renamed the tournament. It's hard to see the Western Open name go, but at least Evans Scholars will see a major boost in funding. That's one upgrade we can accept.

It wasn't BMW's decision to rotate tournament locations. That ruling came from the PGA Tour.

MacDuff's Post Booz Allen Fed Ex Cup Standings

fedexcuplogo.jpgWell the big news hits today...I know you can't wait to hear how the Fed Ex Cup works.

In the mean time, here's MacDuff's latest entry. I wonder if we'll get the Tour's point list for this year to show us how exciting it's going to be (and so we can see how they treat majors and WGC's).

1    Mickelson    22459        14
2    Singh    20134.37        15
3    Furyk    19587.5        13
4    Gf. Ogilvy    18487.5        12
5    Toms    16196.87        11
6    Weir    16021.87        13
7    Van Pelt    15940        17
8    Glover    15879.16        12
9    Pettersson    15758.33        14
10    C.Campbell    15587.5        13
11    Pernice    15525        12
12    Donald    15189.37        10
13    B. Quigley    15075        12
14    Appleby    14987.5        12
15    Oberholser    14637.5        13
16    Pampling    14622.5        13
17    A.Scott    14575        10
18    Olazabal    13862.5        10
19    Sabbatini    13754.16        12
20    Cink    13696.33        12
21    Funk    13637.5        14
22    Gay    13400        13
23    Immelman    13287.5        10
24    Z.Johnson    13075        11
25    Goosen    12937.5        10
26    Bohn    12913.33        13
27    Mayfair    12654.16        13
28    Senden    12475        11
29    Harrington    12450        10
30    Purdy    12375        12
31    T.Clark    12285        12
32    Vn Taylor    12137.5        10
33    Verplank    12037.5        10
34    Jerry Kelly    11687.5        10
35    Imada    11667.5        13
36    Crane    11585        12
37    Choi    11575        11
38    Love III    11412.5        11
39    Herron    11222.5        11
40    Els    11140        11
41    D.Wilson    11112.5        12
42    Lehman    11075        11
43    Warren    11050        11
44    Hoffman    10987.5        12
45    Ames    10862.5        8
46    Parnevik    10767.5        12
47    Sluman    10762.5        14
48    T.Woods    10659.37        6
49    Chopra    10567        12
50    Allenby    10350        9
51    Villegas    10337.5        11
52    RS Johnson    10305        10
53    Bryant    10257        10
54    Wetterich    10175        8
55    Poulter    10062.5        10
56    Watney    10025        11
57    Stricker    9725        7
58    Leonard    9683.33        11
59    D. Howell    9587.5        8
60    Palmer    9466.66        11
61    J.Ogilvie    9345        10
62    Howell III    9187.5        14
63    Flesch    9170        14
64    JJ Henry    9162.5        9
65    Garcia    9112.5        8
66    Waldorf    9087.5        11
67    F.Jacobson    9062.5        8
68    Rose    9041.66        11
69    JB Holmes    8945.83        9
70    Jobe    8905        10
71    Estes    8837.5        9
72    S. Maruyama    8825        10
73    Maggert    8812.5        9
74    Bertsch    8750        11
75    Hart    8680        9
76    G. Owen    8662.5        9
77    Curtis    8625        11
78    Barlow    8612.5        11
79    Azinger    8562.5        11
80    Rollins    8537.5        9
81    Branshaw    8525        9
82    Couples    8437.5        10
83    Austin    8425        13
84    N.Green    8415        11
85    Baird    8242.5        8
86    Beem    8168.75        10
87    Micheel    8162.5        9
88    Franco    8112.5        9
89    Sutherland    8050        10
90    DiMarco    7959.37        9
91    Andrade    7957.5        9
92    Sean O'Hair    7912        10
93    Slocum    7837.5        10
94    Kenny Perry    7812.5        9
95    Lonard    7787.5        10
96    J.Smith    7775        9
97    Sindelar    7762.5        11
98    Lowery    7700        10
99    Gronberg    7550        8
100    Gove    7437.5        7
101    Calcavecchia    7367.5        13
102    Faxon    7125        10
103    Langer    7079.16        9
104    Olin Browne    7075        12
105    Pavin    7062.5        7
106    Bjornstad    7005        9
107    Cook    6962.5        7
108    Baddeley    6962.5        8
109    JL Lewis    6937.5        11
110    Br.Davis    6867.5        9
111    J.Byrd    6862.5        5
112    Bub Watson    6850        7
113    Goggin    6675.25        6
114    Armour III    6425        8
115    Fischer    6425        9
116    M.Wilson    6415        7
117    Kaye    6325        9
118    Triplett    6275        7
119    Pat Perez    6262.5        7
120    Mahan    6262.5        11
121    Barron    6218.75        8
122    O'Hern    6200        4
123    Cabrera    6162.5        6
124    Lickliter II    6150        8
125    Geiberger    6068.75        9
126    B. Haas    6050        8
127    Allen    6050        9
128    Durant    5987.5        11
129    Overton    5837.5        9
130    Leaney    5712.5        7
131    Atwal    5650        6
132    Gore    5525        6
133    David Duval    5525        7
134    Ws Short Jr    5462.5        11
135    D.Clarke    5275        5
136    Westwood    5187.5        5
137    Matteson    5112.5        8
138    S.Jones    4980        9
139    Petrovic    4925        7
140    K. Cox    4887.5        5

Views of Newport, Vol. 4

230136-373384-thumbnail.jpg
(click to enlarge)
One of the holes added to Donald Ross's original Newport layout, the 549-yard par-5 7th, err, 16th features a midway hazard area that Tilly loved, though this one offers a way around.

Here's the view into the green, with those incredibly aged and character rich bunkers (and love the sand color, fescues and flowering weeds that give such a rugged appearance). 

Views of Newport, Vol. 3

230136-373371-thumbnail.jpg
(click to enlarge)
Newport features back-to-back par-3's with the uphill 4th and the long, Redan-like 5th. Both are classics for different reasons.

The fourth tee (upper image) sits next to the maintenance center and features an all or nothing uphill shot played to a "skyline green," generally played into a stiff breeze. The USGA lists it at 137 for this week's event.

230136-373380-thumbnail.jpg
(click to enlarge)

The 5th (lower image) is longer with more of a run-up approach required, and is played on nearly the same line as the previous hole. A design defect to some, but way too fun and different for most to even notice.

It also appears there are plans to alternate the distance for this hole ala the 4th at Baltusrol. 

Views of Newport, Vol. 2

230136-373334-thumbnail.jpg
(click on image to enlarge)
Keep in mind the nines are being reversed for this week's U.S. Women's Open, so the short par-4 11th will be playing as the 2nd.

This is just a great little two-shotter with beautifully placed bunkers that tempt a play close to the green, even though a lay-up left followed by a wedge approach, will do the job. 

And like the 10th at Riviera, it's a timeless design built on Newport's least interesting terrain.