"The most refreshing thing was that for a change he could actually see his ball land in the fairway."

Tom Dunne's excellent case for a shorter ball and downsized game was inspired in large part by a visit to Kingarrock, an experience he says "felt straight out of an episode of Downton Abbey." He makes a couple of key points for those who react in horror at the thought of hitting shorter drives on shorter courses...

After playing a few holes, I looked at a 300-yard par-four in exactly the same way I would a 400-yarder using all modern stuff. And on the one occasion that I outdrove my playing partner, I felt exactly the same way I would have otherwise.

And this point interested me because I was absolutely smitten with the noticeably shorter time between teeing off and reaching your drive, an element that dramatically improves the flow of a round.

Since my visit to Scotland, I've kept in touch with David Anderson, Kingarrock's proprietor. He told me a great story a couple of months ago. A South African touring pro (not one of the household names) visited and played hickory over the summer. After his round Anderson asked him if he'd enjoyed himself. The pro said yes, adding that the most refreshing thing was that for a change he could actually see his ball land in the fairway. That's the game they play. And we could play it, too, under Solheim's three-ball solution.

Here's my video diary from a day at Kingarrock:

"The tour purposely wanted to go long on Saturday so that NBC could direct viewers to Golf Channel for the conclusion of the third round."

The NBC-Golf Channel merger has been a home run for viewers: energized telecasts, higher standards for production values, live Presidents Cup viewing, Johnny was able to drag himself to lowly Kapalua, and shoot, they've even had better guests on Morning Drive (well, except when I appeared). The list goes on and on, and we're only in the early stages.

That said, this revelation from Doug Ferguson's slow play column is bugging me for probably no good reason.

Here’s the bigger issue with TV. Mark Russell, one of the chief rules officials, showed off his atomic watch at Sherwood last month. The seconds were ticking toward 6 p.m. EST, just as the last group on the last green was tapping in. The timing was perfect.

The next day? Not so much.

Despite being in twosomes, play took much longer because of a strong wind. That leads to more time in club selection and on the green. Yet tee times were left alone, thus the third round went well past four hours and the 6 p.m. finish time on NBC Sports.

That wasn’t an accident.

The tour purposely wanted to go long on Saturday so that NBC could direct viewers to Golf Channel for the conclusion of the third round. It was another example of NBC Sports trying to help boost the visibility of Golf Channel now that both are owned by Comcast. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Especially not when TV foots so much of the bill.

I suppose that is true, and I also know networks are generally sensitive to ever being seen as having influenced competition in a negative way, but this seems like a potentially dangerous direction to head. Yes, it was the Chevron World Challenge, and yes, tee times were not moved. And it's not a major. But considering how stubbornly the PGA Tour refused to do anything that might be seen as influencing competition with things like storyline pairings, they've had good reason.

I'm torn in even noting this because ultimately, the benefits of Golf Channel on NBC and NBC on Golf Channel will outweigh the negatives for viewers. Still, this just feels like a precedent setter that could someday backfire, though I'm not sure how. Thoughts?