PGA Clippings, Tuesday Edition

You can read a general preview story touting, "Glory's Last Shot," which the PGA of America slogan committee picked over "Golf's Fourth Major" and "It's A Major, Unlike The Players."

Golf World's Tim Rosaforte says the PGA is better than ever, citing the media's embrace of it as one of his key points. It clearly is the best major that won't budge on tee times just to give a 60 Minutes re-run a strong lead-in.

Ron Whitten looks at the various incarnations of Medinah's 17th, none of which were lousy enough to keep the course out of Golf Digest' s Top 25 in America.

Whitten also writes about the club's early history and the shady fellows who founded it, with help from Medinah club history author Tim Cronin. And best of all, Whitten gets out of having to review the course in detail.

Mark Garrod considers what it'll take for Tom Lehman to play on the Ryder Cup team (a win this week).

Chris Starkjohann has withdrawn for personal reasonsm, messing up pool picks across the land. Actually, it's to play in the Champions Tour event in Seattle(!?). Harrison Frazer Frazar gets his spot, reducing the field by one club pro.

SI's Alan Shipnuck returns to his online roots and answers reader hate mail about his Ryder Cup picks, Tiger and his Hoylake coverage.

Doug Ferguson examines Medinah's record length and asks players if it's really playing that long.

Arron Oberholser, who has average length off the tee, played the back nine and it was about all he could handle.

"It felt like 4,000 yards," Oberholser said.

He was close - the back nine measures only 3,822 yards.

"I wonder if they're trying to do that?" he continued, alluding to the PGA Championship having the longest major championship course three times since 1999. "If they are trying, they have accomplished it quite magnificently."

And this from Furyk...

"It's kind of like moving to a new neighborhood where everybody wants to build a bigger house than the last guy who built one," Jim Furyk said. "Eight thousand? It will happen someday. I'll be long gone and retired. I have a feeling they will probably tone things back probably quicker than we'll get to 8,000 yards. But I would never rule it out."

Golf World's John Hawkins profiles Geoff Ogilvy, but doesn't let Ogilvy do enough talking.

And finally, Golfonline is offering the chance to mail in questions to Ogilvy. I think you can do better than the first three samplers they provided, which hopefully won't be asked:

-Do you feel indebted to Phil Mickelson?

-Have you paid for a meal since June?
-How do you keep your pants so clean?

"We weren't out to make it just dog-long"

Stan Awtrey looks at the latest renovation at Atlanta Athletic Club's Highlands Course, which is hoping to give Medinah a run for most pre-major redos. The Highlands hosts the PGA in 2011, and I know you just can't wait to see it again.

"We wanted to make the course more spectacular," director of golf Rick Anderson said. "We wanted to make the holes more challenging, with some strategy to them. We weren't out to make it just dog-long."

With Highlands in need of major irrigation work, the Athletic Club opted for a major facelift. There's different grass, more bunkers and more water. And, of course, it's longer.

"We wanted to see how many things we could fix at one time," said Anderson, who was only half-kidding.

Superintendent Ken Mangum, the director of golf courses and grounds, was in charge of the project, which began in March. He had an operating budget of more than $4 million.

Can we add that $4 million to the class action suit that the world's golf courses should file against the USGA and R&A to recover expenses?

New championship tees were built on 11 holes. Among the most dramatic is at No. 15, a par 3 which played 227 yards when Toms made a hole-in-one there five years ago. The hole can now be pulled back to play 260 yards.

That's a big yes.

Many fairway bunkers were moved, and others were constructed, to catch up with the pros' ability to fly the ball 300 yards. At No. 6, for example, fairway bunkers have been extended all the way down the right side to the green.

Bet that looks pretty.

Water is more evident, too. A pond was added to the left of the green at No. 6; it draws short shots to it like a magnet. A new back tee at No. 8 requires a 290-yard drive to fly the pond, for those brave enough to take the risk option.

You can now see the water from the 18th tee, which wasn't possible until the alterations pulled the pond 10 yards farther to the right and 10-to-12 yards closer to the tee box.

"I know when I can see the water, it bothers me more," Mangum said.

The 18th, already one of the most famous finishing holes in golf, can now play 528 yards. It will probably play as a par 4 in 2011.

Only 528?

Anderson and Mangum stressed that the changes were needed and would have been made regardless of whether the PGA was returning in 2011. They said the Riverside course, which was redone with zoysia fairways in 2003, had grown to be a favorite with members, and it was drawing more play than Highlands.

Can't imagine why.

PGA Tour Driving Distance Watch, Week 32

The PGA Tour driving distance average remained 289.0 yards following The International. Yep, you learn something new every day. The PGA Tour does not include The International in its statistics because of the Stableford system and players possibly picking up on a hole. Of course, what that has to do with driving distance, I don't know. 

We do know from CBS that Bubba Watson hit a 426-yarder (and a 92-yarder because those trees on 17 are in the way of his draw!).

And here I was thinking that all of those 400-yard drives in past years were registered at Castle Pines. Guess not. 

Hannigan On NY Times Piece

Frank Hannigan calls Damon Hack's piece "sloppy and alarmist," which is like, way harsh Frank.

A vague connection is drawn by the Times between the lengthening of courses and the possible use of drugs with a chart displaying the ever-increasing distance of courses used for major championships, e.g., Winged Foot was 6,987 yards long for the l997 PGA Championship and 7,264 yards for this year's US Open.

Courses have been lengthened and otherwise made more difficult for one reason - to keep the scoring as it was in the past. The US Open at Winged Foot was considered successful because the winning score was 5 over par, essentially the same as the 7 over par winning score at Winged Foot in l974.

Distance has shot up not because of a new species of "fitter" players nor drugs but because of an abject failure by the rules-making bodies. The United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club refused to deal with livelier clubs and balls because they were afraid that if they banned a club or ball already in use there might be a revolution.

Here's how silly the distance factor has become: in l980, the first year during which the PGA Tour measured drives, the leader was Dan Pohl with an average of 274.3. Today, on the senior tour, Pohl's distance average is 293.7.

Frank and other executives key executives keep missing the point. The distance race has created an environment where the emphasis has shifted, and steroids might enter the equation (while anti-depressants are much more refined and likely to be in use).

The USGA and R&A, in an attempt to portray themselves as authoritative, will see to it that there is testing of a sort done at the World Amateur Team Championships in South Africa this fall. If they are going to use the drug standards of the International Olympic Committee, they might nab a kid from Lithuania with marijuana in his bodily fluids. Or, God forbid, caffeine.

Again, maybe not now, but in the next few years. The chances are very real of this becoming an issue, so why not deal with it now, before there is any controversy that does harm to the sport's image? 

Or better yet, why not just adjust the equipment rules and make distance less of a factor? 

MacDuff's Post International FedEx Cup Points

Pat Perez is going to need some help from David Duval this week if he hopes to make the mythical "playoffs." Can you imagine how thrilling this will be next year, when we follow the plight of spots 140-150, wondering if they make the playoffs?

^{1    Furyk    25112.5        16
2    Mickelson    23734        16
3    Singh    23321.87        17
4    Cink    20046.33        16
5    Gf. Ogilvy    20012.5        14
6    Pettersson    19983.33        17
7    Pernice    19312.5        15
8    B. Quigley    19133.33        15
9    Glover    18991.66        15
10    Z.Johnson    18537.5        16
11    Weir    18209.37        16
12    Bohn    17938.33        17
13    Pampling    17905.83        17
14    Appleby    17675        14
15    T.Woods    17584.37        9
16    Toms    17434.37        12
17    Verplank    17425        15
18    A.Scott    17325        12
19    Donald    17176.87        12
20    Immelman    17112.5        12
21    D.Wilson    16731.25        16
22    Funk    16637.5        18
23    Senden    16375        15
24    Van Pelt    16340        18
25    C.Campbell    15737.5        14
26    Gay    15675        16
27    Jerry Kelly    15625        13
28    N.Green    15371.25        17
29    Mayfair    15329.16        16
30    Goosen    15225        12
31    Vn Taylor    15075        14
32    Sabbatini    14829.16        13
33    Oberholser    14712.5        14
34    Choi    14656.25        14
35    Sluman    14650        18
36    Els    14548.33        13
37    J.Ogilvie    14509.28        15
38    T.Clark    14335        14
39    Olazabal    14187.5        11
40    Austin    14187.5        17
41    Flesch    14118.21        18
42    Ames    14037.5        11
43    Allenby    13925        12
44    Hoffman    13800        15
45    Chopra    13758.07        16
46    Imada    13542.5        16
47    Crane    13322.5        14
48    Warren    13254.16        16
49    Villegas    13500        14
50    JJ Henry    13087.5        12
51    Lehman    13025        12
52    Love III    12762.5        13
53    Sean O'Hair    12749.5        14
54    Pavin    12475        11
55    Harrington    12450        10
T56    S. Maruyama    12450        12
T56    Rollins    12450        12
58    Branshaw    12433.33        14
59    Purdy    12375        12
60    Slocum    12325        14
61    Kenny Perry    12212.5        13
62    Barlow    12200        14
63    Palmer    11954.16        14
64    Watney    11935.71        14
65    Garcia    11912.5        10
66    Bertsch    11731.25        16
67    Rose    11716.66        14
68    Leonard    11533.33        13
69    Wetterich    11525        10
70    Stricker    11375        10
71    Herron    11247.5        12
72    RS Johnson    11230        11
73    Andrade    11107.5        12
74    Micheel    11075        12
75    JB Holmes    11070.83        11
76    Gove    10987.5        11
77    Waldorf    10975        14
78    Bryant    10944.5        12
79    Hart    10830        12
80    Parnevik    10767.5        12
81    Baird    10642.5        11
82    D. Maruyama    10641.07        12
83    Lonard    10610.71        13
84    Sutherland    10550        14
85    Bub Watson    10400        10
86    Leaney    10300        11
87    D. Howell    10150        9
88    Lickliter II    10150        12
89    Jobe    10067.5        12
90    Poulter    10062.5        10
91    Dickerson    9991.07        14
92    DiMarco    9909.37        10
93    G. Owen    9850        10
94    Mahan    9837.5        14
T95    Curtis    9762.5        12
T95    Gronberg    9762.5        12
97    Lowery    9725        12
98    Maggert    9700        10
99    F.Jacobson    9675        10
100    Estes    9650        12
101    Sindelar    9487.5        13
102    Azinger    9450        12
103    Br.Davis    9342.5        11
104    Beem    9318.75        11
105    Olin Browne    9262.5        15
106    Howell III    9187.5        14
107    Frazar    9112.5        11
108    Goggin    8600.25        7
109    Kent Jones    8600        11
110    Cook    8575        10
111    Gore    8503.57        8
112    Couples    8437.5        10
113    B. Haas    8437.5        12
114    J.Smith    8425        12
115    M.Wilson    8415        11
116    Durant    8368.75        15
117    Calcavecchia    8321.66        16
118    Kaye    8225        12
119    O'Hern    8200        6
120    Faxon    8150        11
121    Fischer    8137.5        12
122    Franco    8112.5        9
123    Overton    8003.57        13
124    Kendall    7873.21        10
125    Cabrera    7862.5        7
126    Bjornstad    7742.5        11
127    Armour III    7687.5        9
128    Langer    7641.66        10
129    Atwal    7575        9
130    Geiberger    7506.25        12
131    Trahan    7400        8
132    Triplett    7208.33        9
133    Brehaut    7150        11
134    Riley    7025        11
135    Baddeley    6962.5        8
136    JL Lewis    6937.5        11
137    J.Byrd    6862.5        5
138    Sheehan    6850        12
139    Barron    6606.25        9
140    Gamez    6537.5        11
141    Petrovic    6525        9
142    K. Cox    6466.66        8
143    Pat Perez    6350        8
144    Ridings    6412.5        12}

"It was more 'Back to the Future'"

The Hartford Courant's Bruce Berlet talks to Rees Jones about his rees-design of Medinah.

"There were substantial changes, and Tiger and Phil [Mickelson] noticed them when they played practice rounds since it's only seven years since the last major was there," Jones said. "They said they liked them because they can visualize shots better and probably execute them a little more efficiently with the blindness taken out and the bunkers in play in the right spots on the fairway and closer to the greens."

Did they now? 

Jones first viewed the course in 1999, and the project was approved in 2001 and renovations made in '02. He likened the overhaul to what he did at The Country Club in Brookline, Mass., for the 1988 U.S. Open. He might do more to Medinah before the 2012 Ryder Cup.

"The club is very proud of its heritage and was just trying to keep up with the times," Jones said. "They had a combination of different architects and wanted to consolidate the design style. We took out everything that had been built in the last 20 years and rebuilt the greens as they looked 50 years ago.

"It was already a pretty long course, so we didn't want to stretch it too much. It was more `back to the future,' and now it looks older and more classic."

Oh yeah, those bunkers just scream Wadsworth...errr...MacKenzie. 

"Will Golf's Integrity Stand Test?"

Damon Hack in the New York Times looks at the possibility of steroids or beta blockers in golf and offers some interesting perspectives.

“Up until this point in time, I would have said it is a fairly laughable question,” Joey Sindelar, a seven-time PGA Tour winner, said in a recent interview. “The guys in my era weren’t workout guys. It didn’t used to be such a brute strength thing. But we’re getting some serious 6-1 baseball-player-type guys. There’s probably going to be a time when you’re going to look at guys and say, ‘Well, sooner or later somebody is going to cross that line.’ ”

And why love him, Joe Ogilvie:

“We market the long ball,” said Joe Ogilvie, a PGA Tour professional and member of its policy board. “We market the guys who hit it 300 yards. If that’s your message, and people see that beginning at the high school level, I think as a tour it is very naïve to think that somebody down the line won’t cheat.

“As it gets more popular and the zeroes continue to grow to the left of the decimal point, I don’t think there is any doubt that there will be cheaters,” Ogilvie added. “Golf is all about length, and the U.S.G.A., the P.G.A. of America and, to a certain extent, the PGA Tour are perpetuating it by blindly lengthening every golf course. It doesn’t seem like they have a whole lot of rhyme or reason.”

Now Joe, we know there's plenty of rhyme and reason: because it's so much easier than altering the ball! And the side effects are wonderful too. Possible drug usage, adding misery to the game, inflating costs. It's all good!

“Maybe I’m naïve, because I have a hard time believing that anyone would cheat, I really do,” said Tom Lehman, the 1996 British Open champion and the 2006 United States Ryder Cup captain. “The culture of golf is such that you play by the rules.

“If you read in the paper that Tom Lehman just won the U.S. Open and he just took a drug test and he’s been using the clear for the last two years, the guys out here would vilify me,” he added, referring to the steroid tetrahydragestrinone. “It’d be over. For that reason alone, almost, it would keep guys clean.”

But there is no drug test, so you don't have to worry about being villified...

Commissioner, care to dance?

“We are monitoring the situation very carefully and we are making sure that players understand that steroids and other illegal substances are in violation of the rules of golf,” Finchem said. “It’s no different taking a steroid to prepare for a golf tournament than it is kicking your ball in the rough.”

Oh, good one! Though I like David Fay's baseball metaphors much better. Of course, they don't work too well on this subject.

“We don’t think it’s prudent to test just because somebody someplace thinks all sports should test,” Finchem said. “Having said that, if some pattern emerged or, candidly, let’s say that didn’t happen, but it just got to the point that no sport was considered clean, then we would have to take aggressive action.

“If we did test, we would not fool around. We would test aggressively and effectively. We would convince people that we are what people think we are in 2006. If we did it, there would be no hesitation on the part of the players. I would predict 100 percent participation.”

Hack offers this:

While there is no evidence suggesting steroid use on the PGA Tour, two players — Jay Delsing and Joe Durant — said they have heard of competitors taking beta blockers, which are often prescribed for heart ailments but can also be used to combat anxiety.

The extent of beta blocker use — and its effectiveness — has been debated for years on the PGA Tour. In 2000, Craig Parry of Australia said that three players, whom he did not identify, had won major championships during the 1990’s while using beta blockers.

His comment prompted Nick Price, a three-time major champion who took beta blockers during the 1980’s because of a family history of high blood pressure, to say that the drugs hurt his golf game by making him sluggish. (Price has said he won his three major titles after he stopped taking beta blockers.)

Durant, also a member of the PGA Tour policy board, said the anecdotes he had heard about beta blockers are similar. “I have heard of guys taking them and saying that they didn’t help them at all,” he said.

Delsing added: “As an athlete, you want your senses. It would be like, ‘I’m calm, but I don’t know where I am.’ ”

These folks really need to read up on the latest anti-depressants!

Dr. Linn Goldberg, a professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University and a spokesman for the Endocrine Society, said beta blockers could affect people differently, but that they are often used to combat a person’s adrenaline flow.

“You can see that happen with someone putting, or shooting archery, or a doctor using it if before giving a talk,” Goldberg said in a telephone interview. “It does steady your nerves because it combats adrenaline when you get nervous or your palms get sweaty and you have a crowd of people around. It mellows you out.”

When Finchem was asked if he was concerned about players using beta blockers on the PGA Tour, he said the Tour’s research found that beta blockers did not help golfers. He said the Tour had anecdotal evidence from three or four players.

“At least two of those players were on prescription, Nick Price being one,” Finchem said. “They had such a negative impact that they saw a dilapidation that made it very difficult to play the game.

“We have never had much of an indication by players that there is use, and in the isolated incidents we’ve seen, it has been as much as a negative as anything.”

Haven't we worn out this Nick Price anecdote enough? How about a study? You know, after the ball study wraps up sometime this decade?

When Woods was asked for his opinion on testing, he answered the question with his own set of questions. “I think we should study it a little bit more before we get into something like that,” he said. “Where does it start? Who does it? Who is in control of it? What are the substances that you are looking for?”

Sindelar, too, said he recognized the complexity, but he also acknowledged the time for testing may be near.

“It’s at the Olympics, it’s everywhere,” Sindelar said of steroid use. “That’s what goes through my mind. If you said you needed a name, I couldn’t say, yes, it’s that guy. But if it’s everywhere, what that says to me is, why do we think golf is insulated?”

Because it is Joey. Isn't that good enough, because we say so?

Ryder Cup Points Watch, Week 3

According to Jim Nantz on today's telecast, if Tom Lehman wins The International, he moves up to 7th on the U.S. list with one week to go.

With a loss to Dean Wilson on the second playoff hole, he instead moves up to 19th.

Ponder that!

^{1    1    Tiger Woods      36    4,150.000
2    2    Phil Mickelson     43    2,474.375
3    3    Jim Furyk     51    2,076.000
4    4    Chad Campbell     51    1,129.602
5    5    David Toms     49    1,072.250
6    6    Chris DiMarco     50    830.000
7    7    Vaughn Taylor     60    780.833
8    8    J.J. Henry     62    778.750
9    9    Zach Johnson     59    756.477
10    10    Brett Wetterich       46    746.000
11    11    John Rollins     58    685.000
12    20    Stewart Cink     52    676.894
13    12    Jerry Kelly     62    653.750
14    13    Lucas Glover     61    641.376
15    14    Davis Love III     48    631.875
16    15    Fred Couples     39    627.727
17    16    Tim Herron     54    621.667
18    17    Tom Pernice, Jr.     64    615.000
19    29    Tom Lehman     41    612.917}

Meanwhile in Europe, the names with the dashes next to them are in right now. 

^{The Ryder Cup World Points List
Updated:   07 Aug 2006
Position     Player Name     Points
-1     David HOWELL     207.27
-2     Colin MONTGOMERIE     205.90
-3     José Maria OLAZÁBAL     202.09
-4     Henrik STENSON     201.76
-5     Luke DONALD     192.25
6     Sergio GARCIA     187.96
7     Paul CASEY     165.33
8     Padraig HARRINGTON     154.46
9     Carl PETTERSSON     154.12
10     Robert KARLSSON     151.46}

^{The Ryder Cup European Points List
Updated:   13 Aug 2006
After the The KLM Open
Position     Player Name     Points
1     Colin MONTGOMERIE     2434316.11
2     David HOWELL     2274635.98
-3     Robert KARLSSON     1870581.77
4     Henrik STENSON     1782888.71
-5     Paul CASEY     1721833.85
-6     Sergio GARCIA     1634091.27
-7     Padraig HARRINGTON     1514027.44
-8     Paul MCGINLEY     1473112.24
9     José Maria OLAZÁBAL     1381698.05
10     Paul BROADHURST     1336905.57}

Scouting Medinah

For those wondering why more players do not scout out courses like Tiger and Phil have, this quote from Medinah head pro Mike Scully in Len Ziehm's story on Medinah might surprise:

'Since the Western, about half the field has been here,'' Scully said. ''Tiger took his [first] peek early. Phil [Mickelson] put in his extensive time, and Luke Donald played a bunch. There were three that I was surprised weren't here before championship week. We never saw Ernie [Els], we never saw Retief [Goosen] and we never saw Sergio [Garcia].''

Huggan On Sergio

John Huggan kicks off the inevitalbe series of stories on Sergio returning the site of his near-PGA win in 1999, with a column on the 26-year-old's career.

Perhaps understandably in one so young - and so spoiled - Garcia has not always reacted well to adversity. Like all leading golfers, he is a convenient excuse-maker and rarely accepts responsibility for anything, a trait that is enhanced by the fact that he surrounds himself with people whose sole purpose seems to be massaging his sizeable ego. Then there is his selective memory when he talks about not getting good breaks: at times, this less-than-attractive characteristic has slipped into something not far short of paranoia.

Take the aforementioned US Open four years ago. After completing his second-round 74 in almost constant heavy rain, Garcia launched into an astonishing tirade against the organisers and, significantly, his biggest rival. But it is no secret in golfing circles that Woods and Garcia are unlikely to be seen going out for dinner any time soon. Friends they are not.

"If Tiger had been out there, I think it would have been called [off]," Garcia said bitterly. "There was a moment when not even the squeegees were going to help. I really felt like we should have taken a 45-minute break. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't easy this morning, but it was almost impossible this afternoon.

"If you get the luck of getting the good side of the draw, like somebody seems to do in these tournaments, and you're the best player in the world and you make lots of putts, everything works. It's tough to beat a guy when things are going like that."

All of which sounds more than a little sad, never mind defeatist, from one so naturally gifted. Then again, to his credit, Garcia is apparently unafraid of hard work. While the putts have continued to slide by, he has done much to improve his distinctive swing, and today he is perhaps the best driver of a ball among the elite players.

And perhaps just as significantly, the multiple re-gripping saga that used to precede every shot has mercifully been eliminated.

This perspective from Peter Kostis may get the Titleist Golf Products Design Consultant back on non-speaking terms with Tiger:

"Tee to green Sergio compares more than adequately with Tiger," Kostis observes. "He is a very solid ball-striker. He's not better than Tiger, but he doesn't have to play away from his driver. In fact, he is a beautiful driver of the ball.

"I don't see any weaknesses in his full swing. That's his greatest strength. He could certainly get a little better around the greens. And he could certainly get a little better on the greens.

"His temperament is interesting. Let's face it: he is Spanish, and he has a Spanish temperament. He fits the stereotype. His frustrations with the putter cause him some emotional stress, but if he gets that under control, there isn't anything he can't do."

Klein On Medinah

Golfweek's Bradley Klein on this week's PGA Championship host:

For those who think narrow, tree-lined fairways are the paradigm of good course design, Medinah No. 3 stands out like an icon. For others who are keen on strategic variety and a nuanced aesthetic of vistas and playing textures, there is no more boring example of architecture in America than this very long parkland layout in suburban Chicago.

And...

Medinah has length. What it doesn’t have is a lot of trouble around (or on) the greens. The modestly sloped greens don’t unduly punish approaches that are short-sided. With the par-5s vulnerable and little trouble elsewhere, expect lots of low rounds and a tight bunching of the field.

And from his  "America’s Best” ballot...            

3. Natural setting and overall land plan: 5
            The 106,000 square foot Byzantine clubhouse gets a 10, and Lake Kadijah helps situate the golfer. But the course is otherwise devoid of vistas or any external sense of place, other than all of those towering hardwoods, and that gets repetitive real fast.
 
4. Interest of greens and surrounding chipping contours: 7
            The newly rebuilt/regrassed greens, average size 4.200 square feet, are modestly sloped, flawlessly manicured, and without a lot of trouble left and right in terms of short-game recovery.
 
5. Variety and memorability of par 3s: 7
            These are like latte breaks during a valium drip. There’s just enough variance among the trio of over-the-water par-3s (2nd, 13th, 17th) to make them interesting. But the shaping is so odd. Rees Jones’ handiwork is evident in the flat horizon line 2nd green with symmetrical, linear outslopes -- it looks like an upside down pie plate. No. 13 is set above and apart from the lake by surrounding bunkers, but the vinyl support wall there that also creates the diagonal effect of the 17th green (much improved over the old green, by the way!) has a hard-edged look out of character with the grounds.   
 
6. Variety and memorability of par 4s: 5
            All of the strategy is along the tree lines; none of it involves bunkering on the inside of a dogleg. At Medinah, the fairway bunkering on par-4s squeezes landing areas laterally or contains the outside of a dogleg. Only the 12th and 16th holes offer dramatic falloffs for slightly wayward shots
 
7. Variety and memorability of par 5s: 5
            Trees are the primary defense here, which gets repetitive. Play here will likely be decisive for the outcome of the PGA, with birdies abundant and little threat to anyone playing boldly given the lack of interesting bunker positioning on second shots or the element of water in play. The relatively short par-5 fifth is very narrow; the tenth offers the one interesting option of a bold play right in order to get home in two; and the long fourteenth hole requires loft on the approach to hold a tightly bunkered green.
 
8. Basic conditioning: 10
            For a (still) heavily shaded parkland site, Medinah No. 3 thrives. Tom Lively, CGCS, like so many other Chicago-area superintendents, deserves credit for working well under demanding conditions.
 
9. Landscape and tree management: 7
            Thousands of mature hardwoods frame the holes and define the place. They’ve done a good job of clearing out heavily shaded greenside areas, removed nuisance conifers and trimmed up the canopies so golfers and visitors can see under the trees. For a densely wooded course, this is the start of wise tree management. The curtain has at least been lifted.
 
10. “Walk in the park” test: 7
            An enjoyable walk, one that’s strong on ambiance and tradition but a little short in aesthetics and variety.
 
Overall: 6.5
            Medinah No. 3 is ranked No. 57 on the Golfweek Classic Top-100 List, with an average score of 7.14. That’s marginally over-rated in my view. The course is a joyless grind.

Week In Review, August 5-12: Michelle, Michelle

On the eve of the PGA, it's the rules of golf that are getting plenty of attention between Lytham and Ohio (oh, and add Oregon after you read Jim Achenbach's story from Pumpkin Ridge).

Michelle Wie's latest rules infraction probably cost her caddy his job. GeorgeM asks:

"1. Is the the players (pro and amateur) who are neglectful?
2. Is it the coaches and instructors who do not emphasize the rules before the swing?
3. Or is it the rule makers who fail to provide an easily accessible guide to the rules?

I see many rules questions posted on boards by veteran golfers. Why don't we know the answers ourselves?"

CBell chimes in with this point: "As a high school teacher I'd like to say that Michelle is refreshingly normal. She's far ahead of some 16-year-olds in terms of poise and ability to articulate, far behind others. My bigger point is this: the difference between most 16-year-olds and 18-year-olds is huge. Be fair to Michelle. Give her time. As for the rules, she hasn't yet learned NEVER to make assumptions. Call an official. But when you don't know what you don't know - typical of any 16-year-old, let alone someone "expected" to know the minutiae of an arcane set of guidelines - it's easy to make mistakes.

And RM cited that great thinker, Clark Griswold, "Nothing worthwile is easy honey, we know that."

After the round, Tiger was asked some pretty lame questions and I had fun with it. The exchange prompted Hawkeye to write, "Seems to me even the press chokes when Tiger is on the leader board..."

Golf World ran a photo of the Ohio Golf Association's shorter ball that will be used at their Champions Tournament August 22-23.  Some of us would love to know what it is, but JPB makes a good point about why the manufacturer may want it to be a secret:  "The problem is that if the word gets out the ball is shorter in a range of swing speeds, it will be off the market. You can't have a regular ball survive a short hitting reputation IMO. The only way it really works is if the companies put out a retro special or something and market it as a classic course high spin ball."

Scott S asked, "Any word on who made the ball Jack wants us to hit yet?" I think it's safe to say that it's not the same manufacturer cooperating with the Ohio Golf Association.

Ned Ludd said it "Looks like dimple pattern from Dunlop/Maxfli popular in the late 80's. Remember the Dunlop 'Master?'" While ReverendTMac says it "reminds me more of my favorite ball a couple years back, the Top Flite Tour. Three-piece, low compression, high spin...it all fits. Same mixture of smaller and bigger dimples, too."

Chuck asks up a good question: "I am confused as to how any ball can be 'on the conforming list under [a different] name...' I thought the point of the list was to allow in-the-field identification of conforming balls, and that there could be no such thing as a stealth model, which is marked differently yet still conforming. Perhaps someone with greater familiarity with the ins and outs of the Conforming List can supply the information.

johnniecash responded, "A ball does not have to be on the list of conforming golf balls. A ball only has to meet the requirements for balls as stated in Appendix III of the rulebook. Balls that are on the list have been tested and found to conform, but the list is not deemed to be exclusive, unless a committee wishes to adopt it."

A Page From Shakespeare

Jim Achenbach reports from the U.S. Women's Amateur on one of those incidents that makes you really, really wonder about the rules of golf.

Ziehm Talks To Jones

Len Ziehm talks to Rees Jones about Medinah.

In general, what had to be done to Medinah in comparison with what you did at other major championship courses.

I liken this redesign project to what we did at The Country Club at Brookline [Mass.], where we took a very old, storied layout that had a lot of history. I liken it to the Sacred Ground of Golf. Medinah was already ahead of the curve. It had the length, it had the green contours, it had great holes. We didn't have to add that much length, but we did take out about 300 trees.

Trees are organic, and they tend to grow in where the sunlight is, so that was another restoration project, to bring the golf course back to the way it had been in the past. The players will notice a different course from '99 to 2006.

What will they see that will be different?

They'll see a course that has more definition because we took some of the blindness out on No. 1 and No. 8. We took out the bunker on No. 16. We brought the 17th green down to the water, and we took the tee back. Then on 18, we made a major change. We elevated the green and took the tee back. It'll probably be a short iron [approach] with the way these guys are hitting it, but it's going to be a much more precise shot.

The par-3 17th hole has become controversial because it has been changed so much. It has been a completely different hole for each of the last four majors played at Medinah. What went into the design of the current hole?

We put [the green] back on the hazard. We only have three holes that bring the water into play. We were able to bring the green back down to the water, regrade the hill [where the tee complex is located] and make the hole as long as it was [with a new tee]. We accomplished both goals -- we got the water into play, the ultimate hazard, as well as maintained the yardage.

GS.com Birthday On Squarespace

A year ago today I officially switched this site over to Squarespace with a post about some silly press conference question asked of Phil Mickelson. (Some things never change.)

Squarespace is a service specializing in blog-friendly hosting that I highly recommend if you are looking to blog or need basic web services. 

1,000,000 hits later, multiple changes in the design, and plenty of rants (and hopefully laughs) later, here we are.

Thanks for continuing to check in and for your comments.