Monday Open Championship Clippings

I'll spare you the assorted recaps of Jean Van de Velde's meltdown, and point to some of the fresher perspectives on this week's Open Championship at Carnoustie.

Paul Kimmage talks to Nick Faldo about turning 50, and he shares the conversation with us as it occurred. Or so it seems.

The Times' Graham Spiers looks at the town of Carnoustie.

The Independent had a couple of interesting looking stories, but as is often the case with their stellar web site, the links weren't working. Perhaps this story on the state of Carnoustie's rough will be working by morning. And it also appears there is another of James Corrigan's always entertaining email Q&A's, this time with British Amateur champion Drew Weaver.

Robert Philip of the Telegraph turns on his tape recorder and lets Peter Alliss reminisce.

The U.S. golf web sites appear determined to outdo one another in the limited content division, but some blogs are offering up lively reads that'll get you in the mood for this week.

Chris Lewis reviews the weekend's play and previews this week's play.

Meanwhile The Principal offered this countdown, this look at Carnoustie, and a two part look at the R&A's finer moments, here and here.

Comeback (S)kid?

Golf World's John Hawkins does a nice job of analyzing Tiger Woods' lack of a come-from-behind win in a major. He doesn't overdo it, yet also offers up some interesting insights on why Tiger's approach works so well, except perhaps in come-from-behind situations.

Besides that, I thought this was an interesting concession from the mainstream press, something we might not have read just a few years ago when everyone seemed to worship super-silly setups:

No question, Woods has gotten much better at staying in contention when he doesn’t have his best stuff, maybe because he has become so used to it. That said, radically tough layouts such as Oakmont and this year’s version of Augusta National are far more likely to produce an uncommon winner. The higher the degree of difficulty, the more random the competition becomes, which levels the playing field and brings all kinds of candidates into the mix.

Harder is better for the world’s best players, but only to a certain extent. Course fairness is a very subjective matter, but at some point, skill yields ground to luck, in which case you get Ben Curtis and Shaun Micheel.

Byrd Earns Valuable Cup Points

Jonathan Byrd moves to 25th in President's Cup standings with his win at the John Deere Classic!

And he surely moved up the FedEx Cup points list too, but who really cares?

Well, the friends and family of Chris Stroud, to be exact. He would not be in if the playoffs started today. Just thought you should know.

R.W. Eaks Becomes Least Famous Man Over 55 To Win A PGA Tour-Sponsored Event...

In light of last week's PGA Tour press release on Jason Day becoming the youngest-ever winner of a "Tour-sponsored" event, I'm awaiting a release on R.W. Eaks' win at last week's Champions Tour tourney, but failing that, perhaps they'll at least send out a release on Daniel Summerhays becoming the first amateur to win a Nationwide Tour event.

Possible To Spare Ourselves Of TNT's Open Coverage?

For those of us who have long been willing to pay to hear the BBC Open Championship feed, it seems that there is a paid service offering live UK TV streamed online, with a current 7-day free trial to test things out. I haven't signed up yet because I want to make sure I get next Sunday.

But what better time than now to take in the Open Championship coverage, since any sane being has been dreading two days of Bobby Clampett and hearing those relentless plugs for The Closer (sorry Mike!). Oh, and ABC's coverage will apparently have no Peter Alliss on the weekend. Brilliant move!

The sign up page link is here.

And here are the telecast times on the various BBC's. 

I'll let you know how the sign up goes tomorrow. And if anyone has tried this already, could you let us know how it works? 

"Part of the strategy on any links is avoiding the bunkers. But we couldn't see too many of them because of the rough!"

John Huggan reminds us that Carnoustie is a great golf course, we just couldn't see it under all that rough in 1999. He reviews the event in his Sunday column.

First, this memory from Geoff Ogilvy:

"Then I got up there. It was such a disappointment. Breaking 80 was an unbelievable effort. If there is one course on the rota that doesn't need to be touched at all, it is Carnoustie. And they got lucky. It didn't even blow to any great extent. It was the greenness of the rough that was embarrassing. It looked so cultivated and unnatural. It was bizarre."

That it was, the strangeness of the whole situation summed up by the sight of Greg Norman, one of the game's most powerful players, missing the 17th fairway by a foot with his tee-shot, then swinging as hard as he could in a vain effort to move the ball from a lie best described as subterranean. The whole thing was getting silly enough to cause the then 20-year-old Sergio Garcia to burst into tears after an opening round of 89. Less than one month later, it should be noted, the young Spaniard was good enough to finish second in the USPGA Championship.

"If you missed the fairway - any fairway - by even a yard, you were hacking out," remembers Australian Peter O'Malley, one of golf's straightest hitters and the man who hit the opening tee-shot on day one. "We were just lucky the weather wasn't too bad. If it had been really windy no one would have broken 300.

"The set up was really weird. Part of the strategy on any links is avoiding the bunkers. But we couldn't see too many of them because of the rough!"

And on John Philp's contribution to the game...

Most, if not all, of the blame for the craziness was heaped on the head of one John Philp, the head greenkeeper. And it must be said he deserved nearly all of the criticism that rained down on his misguided head. Indeed, the much-maligned Philp did not help himself with a series of public comments seemingly designed to further alienate the world's best golfers.

"Golf is about character and how a player stands up to adversity," he sneered. "But, like a lot of things in life, golf has gone soft.

"Playing this type of course requires imagination and it requires handling frustration.

"I know there is a bit of a lottery in the way this course plays. Top players take badly to bad bounces. But the element of luck is critical.

"Take that away and you don't have a real game of golf. They are too pampered now."

Amidst the fast-accelerating level of complaints, the Royal & Ancient Golf Club claimed that all was well, that the jungle-like rough had been neither fertilised nor excessively watered and that, besides, they had been unable to do anything about it all. The problem, they claimed, was caused solely by the weather immediately preceding the championship.

Except it wasn't of course. Almost three months before the championship, your correspondent had played the Carnoustie course in the annual media gathering hosted by the R&A. After my round I was - funnily enough - standing at the bar in the hotel behind the 18th green waiting to be served. As I did so, the then secretary of the R&A, Sir Michael Bonallack, approached and asked my opinion of the course.

This was fun too...

"There is nothing wrong with having long, wispy rough that introduces doubt in a player," confirms Scotland's Andrew Coltart, who finished in a tie for 18th back in '99. "But long, lush grass only requires us to mindlessly reach for the lob wedge and is just plain daft.

"Eight years ago, the rough was just so thick and looked to me like it had been fertilised. There was no chance to get the ball on the green and no chance even to take a chance, if you see what I mean. I played with Tiger Woods on the last day and even he couldn't hit out of that stuff. So it was boring to play and, I'm sure, to watch. It was drive, chop out, wedge to green."

And Barker Davis, writing for the Sunday Telegraph, offers these remembrances...

Lee Westwood

The first round I was playing with Greg Norman, and he was playing really well, a couple under or something. On 17 he hit it right, not far right, just a couple of feet off the edge of the fairway and you virtually couldn't see it. He ended up making seven or eight and that summed it up. But I like the course, it's up in my top three with Birkdale and Muirfield.

Richard Green

I remember playing the last couple of holes on Friday just praying to get off the golf course. I was just in a lot of mental pain. There was one tee shot on the fourth that I hooked to the right. I ended up slashing about in the rough for ages. But it's still one of my favourite courses, up there with Kingston Heath in Australia and Royal Lytham.

Hank Gola, New York Daily News

It was like watching a slow-motion car wreck. When Jean Van de Velde went into the Barry Burn and rolled up his pants, it was the most amazing thing I've ever seen. The Frenchman goes up in flames. I remember walking in the play-off with Davis Love III, who was smoking a cigar at the time, and he said they got what they deserved for the set-up.

Thomas Levet

On the sixth hole I hit a drive and it bounced 90 degrees right and finished in the rough by two inches. From there I couldn't get the fairway back. So I made a drive, my sand iron five times and a putt - seven, double bogey. It was so deep I didn't know if that ball was going to go one yard or 80. But what I remember most is Jean Van de Velde. I was at the airport with Dean Robertson.

We were sitting in the lounge at Edinburgh watching Jean play the last hole.

It was a great moment of golf, like a great tragedy, but it was not very good to know it was a Frenchman. We couldn't believe it. We were speechless. It was crazy that day.

Michael Campbell

I think I shot 13 over and missed the cut by one. I remember sitting down with a bunch of players and watching the coverage on the Friday afternoon. It was carnage. It was pathetic really. I watched Norman hit it two yards in the rough. I wasn't laughing at the time. I was shaking my head saying: "This is not right, this is not good TV."

Sergio Confident He Can Improve on '99 Carnoustie Performance

Just in case you forgot how silly a test Carnoustie was, John Huggan reminds us of this:

Perhaps the biggest irony of Garcia's disastrous two days at the '99 Open - he followed the 89 with an 83 - was that he arrived having just shot 62 at Loch Lomond in the Scottish Open. For a 19-year old with the game seemingly at his mercy, the world was a wonderful place.

Good News! Monty Putting Design Career On Hold To Keep Playing

Yes, he's depriving us of several signature designs, but the game will survive (I hope). From an unbylined Daily Mirror piece where he talks mostly about his divorce and health problems:

"Some people might say: 'You've done well but give it a break and do something else'," he said. "I've got the golf course design company and other bits and bobs away from golf.But golf is who I am. It totally defines me. I still love the competition and I love winning. Don't tell the sponsors but they don't have to pay me because winning means more.

What's Going On With Carnoustie's Third?

(click to enlarge)I opened up Golf World's foldout map of Carnoustie (not posted online), only to find this comment from Brett Avery surprising:

The most significant changes, though, are at No. 3, which becomes a more pronounced dogleg right. One of Carnousties's trademarks, a bunker in the center of the fairway, was replaced by an island smothered by rough. But also pinching in the rough on both sides of the fairway, the R&A greatly restricts options off the tee; the impulse is to play over the island, which brings Jockie's Burn into play through the fairway. Driving the green requires crossing the burn as it curls in front of the putting surface. Although the burn should be dry during the Open, challenging it probably isn't worth the potential penalties considering the green's existing contours. 

I recall this being a wonderful hole, particularly as it appeared from the tee (though my memory is awful!).

Has anyone seen this R&A imposed design change?

Reducing options and a grassy mound in the center of the fairway do not exactly sound like the stuff of great design. 

You can launch the official Open Championship site's course tour (where the drawing above was taken from) here. 

"Mis-hits with his current equipment meant off-line landings of 5-10 yards; with the old clubs, as much as 50 yards off-line."

Steve DiMeglio of the USA Today got Brandt Snedeker to play a retro set of golf clubs with the help of Bridgestone and Taylor Made, presumably to tell us how lucky we are while they're in the world. Snedeker's assessments are particularly interesting in this lengthy piece.

Snedeker arrived at this approach as a test subject for USA TODAY. The 6-1, 190-pound former Vanderbilt All-American enthusiastically agreed to play a round of golf with a set of previous-generation clubs.

Obviously figuring his round would be made more difficult, Snedeker was nonetheless surprised how drastically golf had changed in just a matter of years.

"I don't know how to explain the sound" at impact with the old clubs and ball, he says. "It feels like the ball is getting stuck on the clubface. The old ball feels so soft, like a marshmallow."

His oversized metal woods, perimeter-weighted irons and state-of-the-art shafts and golf balls were pitted against woods actually made of wood; heavy, steel shafts and diminutive irons that were far less forgiving than today's advanced sets and balls last seen 20-25 years ago. Snedeker last hit a wood driver when he was 8 and then only in goofing with his dad's set.

The test came just hours after Snedeker secured his future by cashing in for $182,000 for his 12th-place tie at The Players Championship in May to earn his 2008 card.

Snedeker stepped back in time here by the Atlantic Ocean at the par-72, 6,687-yard Plantation Course where LPGA Hall of Famer Louise Suggs and PGA Tour star Davis Love III honed their games.

On a traditional course that unfolds among oak and cedar trees 300 to 500 years old and presents wide fairways and relatively flat greens, Snedeker experienced the game of golf as played by his predecessors.

Snedeker appreciated as he never did how good it feels to play with the modern ball — featuring titanium compounds, hybrid materials, softer shells and a more pressurized core — and his TaylorMade r7 driver. That club features moveable weights, inverted cone technology to promote higher ball velocity and an exotic shaft that matches the swing weight, flex point and kick point he prefers.

And thankfully, it helped him score! 

With his technology-driven equipment, much of it devised by those with aerospace and defense industry backgrounds, Snedeker shot 3-over 75 in 15-25 mph winds — five shots better than when he pulled out the older counterparts used by previous generations.

Oops.

Only a red-hot 1988 putter kept matters so close. With the old flat stick, Snedeker made birdies from 3, 4, 25 and 30 feet and holed many par-saving putts of 4-8 feet. With his up-to-date putter he made three birdies but had two three-putts and just missed on five other putts for birdie.

The rest of the round, however, was marked by a one-club difference in length between the old and new irons.

There was a 25-30 yard difference between drivers, 40-50 yards when he mis-hit the old driver. Mis-hits with his current equipment meant off-line landings of 5-10 yards; with the old clubs, as much as 50 yards off-line.

So glad we're going to get those grooves regulated.

"I truly appreciate growing up in the generation that I did," Snedeker says, "because I don't think I would have grown up to be a pro golfer if I had to have played with the old stuff. It is so much different, so much tougher."

That's why Snedeker was so thankful the 80-year-old seaside layout he played isn't bursting with forced carries over water, 15-foot-deep bunkers and large mounds on the greens. Only seven holes bring water into play; his slightest mis-hits on three involving water resulted in two double bogeys and a bogey.

"On the toughest new courses, where you have to fly the ball 200 yards over water or unplayable areas, I might not break 90, 100 with the old equipment," he says.

"But the great equalizer is putting. That's what makes golf so great. Even if I was using 1960s equipment, if I'm putting great that day, I could still spank the best equipment in the world. If I don't make putts, I get killed."

This was nice to read:

"It makes me really appreciate the guys that came before me," Snedeker says of hitting the old clubs. "The way Bobby Jones played golf, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Ben Hogan, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller. Those guys were phenomenal.

"They had to be unbelievable ball strikers to hit the ball straight and as solid as they did."

Fast forward...

Just as shocking was the once top-of-the-line Rextar golf ball, which featured rubber-like balata-tree material that created a soft cover and yielded more spin. Conducting his own experiment, Snedeker hit one of the Rextar balls with his new sand wedge and shredded the cover of the ball.

"If we had (the new) golf ball in my day," Trevino says, "the best of us would have hit it 300 yards and Jack Nicklaus would have hit it 360."

Don't forget those workout programs Lee!

On the first nine holes using the persimmon driver and the older ball, Snedeker could find the fairway just two of nine times. Each of his drives were low-flying projectiles that snapped to the left and went 200-220 yards — into high rough and behind trees.

On the first hole, he had 188 yards to the pin after his drive with the wood ended near a tree. With his contemporary TaylorMade r7 driver, he had 128 yards from the middle of the fairway to the pin.

On the par-4, 445-yard ninth, he had 200 yards to the pin after his drive with the wood ended up in rough; he had 144 yards from the middle of the fairway after using his modern driver.

"I'm seeing parts of this golf course I've never seen before," Snedeker said on the 12th hole. "I'm trying everything to keep the old driver on this planet."

He finally ditched his normal swing with the old driver and tried something that was supposed to produce a slight fade. By the time he reached the tee on the par-4, 409-yard 13th, he was pleading to the golf gods to find a fairway. He figured he needed a slice-swing to make it go straight.

"The biggest difference is the new ball doesn't curve as much anymore," Snedeker says. "It was a more precise game back then. The ball was spinning so much more, and it was so much harder to control vs. today's golf ball. The ball wanted to curve 20, 30, 40 yards.

Damn ball! How dare it not do what you pray for it to do!

"That's why you see guys hit the ball so much farther now, because we can go at it so much harder than they were able to do so back then. Back in the '60s and '70s and '80s, you couldn't go at it full bore because you could literally hit it 30, 40 yards off line.

"Every pro on the Tour, the biggest fear is hitting a low draw or snap hook," Snedeker adds. "Now the equipment is set up today where the ball won't spin enough to hit that draw. I have no fear. I really saw that today."

Progress baby!

The irons Snedeker used in this experiment were certainly some old fuddy-duddies.

"The old irons take a much steeper divot. Today's irons are built with so much more bounce, which allows you to sweep the ball off the ground," Snedeker says. "I was taking huge divots today with the old stuff, and when you take steep divots, it affects your speed and affects the way the club works with the ball.

"The players in the past had to have great tempo to control the ball back then. It was a lot of fun to draw the ball 30 yards into a pin or cut the ball 30 yards into a pin. It proves the old guys were so much better course managers. They had to think their way around the golf course so much more because of the way the ball moved.

"You had to know every trouble spot," he says, "because the slightest mis-hit, you were in big trouble."

But at least he knows who signs his checks...

As Snedeker signed his scorecard, he had little trouble recalling every shot. He smiled at some of the recollections.

"Technology certainly makes the game easier for everyone to play, and that's great for golf," he says. "It makes the game easier for the pros to play. But don't think it's easy out there for us. The courses are getting longer and longer, the bunkers deeper, the rough deeper, the greens faster.

"Golf has always been a great game. Today it's still a great game, too, with all the new technology. I can't wait to see what comes next."

Green Section Opportunity

I penned a short Golfdom commentary on the USGA folding the Championship Agronomist position and what it might mean for the Green Section.

Kids Turning Pro

With the news that 16-year-old Tadd Fujikawa is turning pro, as well as this interesting Mike Sorensen Deseret Morning News piece on Utah's Finau brothers taking the plunge (thanks to reader Warren), I continue to wonder what it is beyond the obvious lure of money that is encouraging kids to make a decision that so rarely ends well.

Is it the success of Morgan Pressel and Paula Creamer?

Does technology allow them to play a certain game that 16-year-olds weren't capable of just a few years ago?

Is it mostly that the people around them hoping to cash in? 

Or is it the rule change that allows juniors and amateurs to receive free equipment?

I've had several college coaches tell me hair-raising stories about club company reps and how pervasive their role is in amateur golf. Since amateurs have become eligible to receive free equipment, we have seen an unusual number of top juniors skip college to cash in, with few success stories.

Does anyone else see the correlation, or is this simply a matter of golf catching up with other big time sports?

Golf Channel Demo's Skewing Just A Tad High

From Thomas Bonk's LA Times golf column:

Further proof that you can't stop getting older: According to the latest statistics, the average age of a daytime Golf Channel viewer is 62. That's up from 58 in the last sampled period, according to Magna Global's "Median Age Report."

"How can you not look at scores?"

Doug Ferguson looks at this year's "rigorous" majors and wonders what exactly that means. This part was particularly fun:

Jim Hyler, head of the championship committee at the USGA, preached all week at Oakmont that the mission was to create a "rigorous test" at the U.S. Open, but he offered a peculiar defense when 35 players failed to break 80 in the second round, and someone suggested the USGA again had gone over the top.

"The players' scores mean nothing to us," he said. "Absolutely nothing."

But if that's the case, how does he know the test has been rigorous?

"We're not performing in front of judges," Justin Leonard said. "They don't rate every shot. How can you not look at scores?"

Oh Justin, really, they aren't fixated on par. They only break out the '96 Chateau Lafite Rothschild if the winning score is +8 or higher. Special occasions only.

The Royal & Ancient paid more attention to the players' reactions than their scores, and chief executive Peter Dawson conceded that Carnoustie was too extreme in 1999. Asked if the R&A regretted how the course was set up, he replied, "I think so."

"To be honest, we regard player reaction as very important," Dawson said. "The reaction there was clearly more negative than we would liked to have seen."

What to expect this time?

"We are not seeking carnage," Dawson said. "We're seeking an arena where the players can display their skills to the best effect."

As usually, the R&A's head man had to offset his sound thinking with the ridiculous:

"The key part of the game of golf is to have an element of unfairness and to be able to handle it when it happens to you," Dawson said. "If everything was totally fair, it would be dull."

You see Peter, that's Mother Nature's job, perhaps with the occasional assist from a funny bounce. The bad breaks from silly fairway contours, knee high rough and bad hole locations? That's a different deal. It's called contrived. And usually the people doing the contriving are the same ones who obsess about how winning scores might reflet on themselves.  

"The set-up was unfair and ridiculous."

Just in case the media starts buying into John Philp's revisionist history (see the July Golf Digest, link not available), Tiger Woods sets the record straight on Carnoustie in 1999, writing:

Although I tied for seventh, it was probably the hardest British Open course I have ever played -- even harder than Muirfield. The set-up was unfair and ridiculous. I remember stepping off the fairway at No. 6 and it was nine yards wide in the lay up area. That's not much room when you have to hit a 4-iron in that space. It's still a great course, but I hope the R&A has learned a lesson.

And this was interesting... 

I will say this: the British Open Championship is my favorite major. My first was at St. Andrews so it doesn't get much better than that. I just love the history, tradition and atmosphere. You need patience and imagination to play well, plus the fans are great.