Letter From Saugerties, Bifurcation Edition

/

The latest letter from Frank Hannigan, former USGA Executive Director, responding to the recent talk of bifurcating the rules.

Dear Geoff,

From During a recent exposure to the press tour commissioner Tim Finchem mused about the occasional benefits of bifurcation-, that awful word-, citing instances when the Tour went off on its own, presumably to its benefit.  Specifically, he cited grooves and adoption of what is generally called the "one ball rule."
 
U-grooves were introduced into the Rules of Golf by the USGA in 1984. Finchem's predecessor Deane Beman was obsessed with grooves. He felt the U-grooves changed the essence of the game. The USGA did not agree.     
 
The Tour announced it would ban U grooves. Ping, the first manufacturer to adopt U grooves, sought and received an injunction restraining the Tour. Ping first sued the Tour and a little later the USGA which had ruled that the Ping version of U-grooves alone did not conform to the Rules of Golf.
 
Ping charged the Tour with 9 violations of the law. The case was heard by a federal judge in Phoenix, Ping's home. The judge ruled from the bench that the Tour had acted so outrageously that it was guilty per se of  one of the 9 charges. As a consequence, if the case came to trial the jury's only role on that count would be to determine a dollar amount representing damage done to Ping.
Since it was an anti trust case that amount would be automatically trebled.
 
The jury would consist of 6  local citizens trying to stay awake during a lengthy trial on an arcane matter.   They would have surely have been aware of one factor:  Ping, with about 1500 employees, was good for the economy of Phoenix.Might they have been influenced on the remaining 8 counts by the judge already having labeled the Tour as bad guys?  I think so.
 
Karsten Solheim, the owner of Ping, opted to settle.  The key point in the settlement was that the Tour would not ban U grooves.  Quite simply, the Tour lost. I can think of no other instance  in which a professional sports entity is legally prohibited from determining what its equipment will be.  It's as if major league baseball could not ban metal bats.

The other settlement terms were not announced I have always assumed the Tour had to compensate Solheim for his considerable legal fees. As for Beman, the late Leonard Decof,  Solheim's lawyer, once boasted to a group of anti trust lawyers at a Chicago meeting "He'll be gone soon."      

Ping's suit against the USGA was also settled. No money changed hands, I know that because I was named with others in the USGA hierarchy as an individual defendant and therefore had to sign the settlement. The USGA relented on an important point. All Ping clubs made up to a specified date  would be grandfathered eternally under the Rules of Golf. Solheim, however, changed his grooves on  the same day  so as to conform with USGA rules,  which he had vowed never to do,

The Tour, to this day, flinches when it hears a threat of anti trust behavior.  

As for the one ball rule,  it was enacted with the concurrence of the USGA. It was directed at the use of balls performing differently in different conditions. The 2 piece balls of the 1970s had a distance  advantage depending on the angle of launch.  This advantage peaked at about 19 degrees, 5 ironish. (Incidentally, the two piece ball also putted longer.  A stroke producing a roll of l0 feet with the 2 piece ball would roll 9 feet with the softer balata ball).  
 
It was also a time when Acushnet was producing a different version of its Titleist balls.  Seve Ballesteros used the one with larger dimples driving downwind as he won his first British Open at Lytham. He reverted to a  traditional ball on the other holes..  
 
I once had a conversation with Tom Watson when he expressed outrage about ball changing. He had ripped a 3 iron, using a balata ball, to the green of a hard par 3 hole.  Watson said he then watched in dismay as  fellow competitor Rik Massengale unzipped  his ball pouch,  pulled  out a Molitor, and used  a 5 iron successfully.

The USGA felt that the choice of different brands of balls during a round should play no part in the outcome. But it wanted to know what the players felt. So we sent a letter to every member of both the PGA Tour and the LPGA (having obtained the mail addresses from both organizations). The players were asked if they would favor or oppose a local rule which would limit them to use of but one brand of ball during a round,   

Remember, this happened during the days of snail mail. Tour players were not famous for being correspondents.  But they reacted in large numbers.  Overwhelmingly, including those who had taken to switching brands during rounds, the players favored adoption of the one ball rule.
 
During this episode the USGA said not one word to ball manufacturers. The USGA didn't give a damn what manufacturers felt. They are involved in golf for the purpose of making money. The USGA exists in an attempt to preserve a game.
 
Those who favor bifurcation never explain what it is they want to happen. They are in the business of golf, and the golf business is bad.  So they blame the USGA, defining it as a totalitarian entity that does whatever it feels like doing without any concern for or interest in what the rest of golf thinks.   The head of the Taylor Made outfit recently predicted the absolute demise of the USGA, a death which would presumably cause golf to glow again.  I took that to mean that Addidas, the sports equipment colossus that owns Taylor Made, is not thrilled with its subsidiary's performance.
 
In point of fact,  the rules-making process is remarkably democratic.   There are 5 members of the committee proper  drawn from the USGA executive committee. They have no axes to grind.  They are influenced and to some extent educated by the USGA staff. Additionally, there are 4 advisory members representing the PGA Tour, the LPGA, the PGA of America and the country's regional golf associations.  They matter.  I can't conceive of the 5 regular members shoving a rules change down the throats of the advisory people.
 
The Tour representative, named by Finchem, especially matters. For better or worse, the Tour has come to have something close to veto power,particularly when it comes to equipment. If there is a discussion about a rules change and should the Tour's man says "We will not play that rule," the discussion is over.

Frank Hannigan
Saugergties, New York

2013 USGA Annual Meeting And Dinner Menu Report

/

Glen Nager left little doubt about his commitment to pace of play when the second term USGA President finished his 4220 word speech in 28 minutes, well before the 6:00 p.m. projected finish. The resulting domino effect had USGA old-timers craving an extra half hour with the USGA's open bar, but left them shocked when the ringing dinner bells signaled a traditional 30 minutes with the hors d’ouerves--veggies, dips, Kobe sliders, jumbo shrimps, humus and pita. The revised USGA Annual Meeting Time Par meant the dinner--mixed greens and butternut squash soup, fish/pork ribs on a bed of veggies finished off ambitiously by out-of-season diced strawberries for dessert--wrapped up at the record early hour of 9:11 p.m. 

Granted, Nager was aided in part by a late WD from Bob Jones Award winner Davis Love (here's a tribute video narrated by Darius Rucker and hastily arranged video thank you can be viewed at USGA.org)

America’s best volunteer rules officials gathered at the legendary Hotel Del Coronado to discuss all things governing body. With the added tension of the PGA of America and PGA Tour questioning the wisdom of recent actions by the USGA to ban anchoring, the specter of looming fights over the future of the game did nothing to discourage Nager from delivering a strongly worded speech featuring pointed rebuttals toward USGA critics.

Before I get to the highlights of Nager’s speech, a word for you shareholders about the particulars of the meeting, where words like proxy are thrown about, seconds are asked for and departing committee members are giving parting gifts.

Treasurer Diana Murphy reported a USGA war chest of $274 million, with $22 million gained from 2012 investment income, a “realized net” of $6.3 million from operations, and a 4% rise in membership dues. The numbers all badly missed analyst projections, with some of Wall Street's finest suspender wearers predicting $5.4 in operating profit, $12.1 million realized from investment income, and no increase in membership due revenue. However, a projected operations margin fall from 3% to 2.5% in 2014 caused the USGA stock price to plummet 20% in Saturday evening trading.

Former president and nominating committee chair Walter "Presidents only travel by private jet" Driver announced the latest committee nominations and did his best Goldman man job of demonstrating complete indifference by mangling names and home clubs. Committee member Condoleeza Rice managed to get out of the annual meeting, making her two for two since going on the nominating committee. Driver also missed a nice opportunity to announce Rice’s home club as Augusta National. Maybe next year.

As for Nager’s impressive speech, you can read the key bifurcation highlights here as noted by Mike Stachura. (Wally Uihlein will be pleased because the "unification" word came up.)

I’ll try to highlight all of the many meaty portions that stood out to me and most likely to the audience of 250 or so. First off, there will be a surprising new role for the Green Section as part of Nager’s announced pace of play agenda.

We will expand its educational services to include specifically the various aspects of golf course management that impact pace of play. The Green Section will also offer a specialized on-site visit that can evaluate the playing quality of a golf course – of which pace of play is a central component.

Nager also said the slow play study currently overseen by the test center’s Matt Pringle will include a refinement of the USGA’s Time Par system, but unfortunately there was no commitment to introduce the effective system to the US Open because of the apparent shock to the system it would deliver to the PGA Tour’s extremely sensitive professionals.

Time Par – that it should take to complete each hole. With the insights gained from the Test Center’s modeling project, our Handicap Department will be working to refine and enhance the Pace Rating System. Ultimately, we intend to make the system more dynamic, allowing us to better customize the Pace Rating of individual courses.

My favorite part of the speech is next, though I would love to see these kinds of initiatives backed by some form of incentive to courses to offer financial perks or blocks of tee times for those who choose to play faster alternate formats:

We will also work to encourage alternate forms of play – such as match play, foursomes, and Stableford – that are popular in other parts of the golfing world and that are known to take less time to play than the standard American four-ball. We can also better educate recreational golfers on the benefits of equitable stroke control, so that they understand that their Handicap Index will not be adversely affected by picking up when appropriate

Maybe the PGA of America could chip in some of its millions for some green fee rebates?

Coolifying nine holes is also a priority:

So we must work to promote the nine-hole round as a complete and enjoyable golf experience. Contrary to some beliefs, a nine-hole round is fully compatible with having fun and with both the Rules of Golf and the USGA Handicap System. If there are any stigmas associated with a nine-hole round or a nine-hole course, we must identify them and work to overcome them. We must also help golf facilities understand better the benefits of offering a nine-hole option to their customers.

And in the important-but-concise statement department:

Lack of time is a real challenge for the game. We all need to join together to address these issues, and the USGA is firmly committed to leading the charge.

Nager pivoted at this point and delivered 1500 words pointed squarely at bifurcators and in particular the PGA of America, who honored him the day before as an honorary life member.

The argument that “easier is better” is premised on concerns about recent economics – and that fact alone should cause us to pause. There certainly are important issues for the golf industry to address, including economic issues, but revenue concerns arising during a broad economic slowdown should not lead us fundamentally to alter our approach to writing the Rules and defining the game. It is our obligation as a governing body to keep our eye on the long-term good of the game and to hold firm to what we know to be true about the essence of golf.

The underlying logic of “easier is better” is inexorably contrary to the game’s very nature. Golf is a unique game of skill and challenge. The need for skill and the elements of the challenge are what define golf; they are in fact what have caused us to love the game for the past 600 years. The game tests us, vexes us, humbles us, and thrills us – so that, when our rounds are finished, we can’t wait to tell our tales of triumph and woe; so that we search endlessly for the skills that will allow us to improve; so that we can’t wait for our next chance to play; and so that we stand in awe of those who can play better than we can. For centuries, golfers have fervently embraced and celebrated the challenge of the game.

I question how much this bifurcation argument resonates much with core golfers:

The analogies to rules in other sports also ignore a crucial difference that makes golf unique. In football, baseball, and similar sports, competition takes place in a contained league; players participating at one level generally do not play simultaneously at another level. Golf is wonderfully different: a single amateur golfer may simultaneously participate at virtually every level of the game. He or she may play in a national open alongside leading professionals; in elite national, regional or state amateur events; in school leagues or events; in club or inter-club championships; and in casual competition with players of the same or entirely different levels of ability. To create multiple sets of Rules for all these various levels of play would create confusion for competition organizers, players and officials alike, and would serve no purpose. Golf is a single game; that is part both of its unique appeal and its ability to grow as a global sport.

 This, on the other hand, does probably resonate with a lot of people:

In the end, some advocates of an easier set of Rules for amateurs seem to believe that recreational golfers do not care about whether they are playing the same great game that they watch on television and are merely looking to have a generalized form of casual “fun” that is unconnected to the game’s great traditions. Well, I am a recreational golfer, and I could not disagree more. Like many recreational golfers, I strive to master the skills of an elite golfer, which is why I take so many lessons, pound so many golf balls on the range, read every golf magazine and instructional manual I can find, buy the latest equipment and golf balls promoted by professional players, and savor the well-struck shot and occasional birdie so much more than my total score. I want to play the great courses that the legendary champions have played, in order to compare my performance with theirs – treasuring the fact that, on any given stroke, using the same equipment and following the same Rules, I may play as good a shot as the most elite player.

And if the ball was rolled back or a limit placed on PGA Tour driver size as part of a one-ball condition type clause, the core golfer would still follow the professional's lead and the Rules would live, no?

Now, this last part is where it gets complicated because as you hear this part, it’s easy to agree and also easy to say, “uh, the USGA helped inspire a lot of these bad habits with their course setups!”

…the game of golf is facing real and complex challenges. But the answer is not to change the game. We should instead vigorously address the factors that we already know discourage golfers from enjoying or taking up the game – such as long golf courses that are unduly expensive to maintain; rough heights that make it difficult to find golf balls and slow down play; putting greens that are set up at speeds that are expensive to maintain and that slow down play; and indeed slow play itself.

That lone awkwardness aside, it was exciting to hear an urgency to take action from the USGA and at least for me, that supersedes any quibbles or double standards that may arise in such a powerful speech.

You can live or relive the evening with John Mummert's photo gallery here.

Video: Phil's (Bank?) Putt On Way To Winning Waste Management

/

On a shot you'd normally expect him to hit the flop shot only Phil can pull off, he putts it, maybe gets a slight graze off the intermediate cut, and it goes in.

Q.  We know you're a magician on the greens, but on No. 7, was it really your intention to bank the putt off the collar of the fringe and into the hole?
   
PHIL MICKELSON:  Yes.  (Laughter.)

I had to putt 20 feet through the fringe.  That was    the challenge of that was to judge the speed where half the putt is through fringe and half is on the green.

I got lucky to have made it, obviously.  I was just trying to 2 putt it.  It was doing fairly quickly when it got to the hole, probably would have been six, eight feet by.  I was very fortunate to make a 2 there.  With Brandt in there close, that was a big momentum change for us.

With the win--his 41st and one that tied for the second lowest score in PGA Tour history Mickelson helped move the news cycle away from Vijay's deer antler spray and back to golf, says John Strege.

Mickelson also moves to No. 10 in the world and Brandt Snedeker, runner-up, moves to No. 6, wrties Jason Sobel.

Make sure to watch to see the aerial view from NBC:

Reminder: Morning Drive Re-Launch Monday

/

In case you missed the Waste Management Open, the Golf Channel's morning show re-launches Monday morning with a new cast, new set and new vibe.

My hotel doesn't have Golf Channel so I won't get to see the re-launch of Morning Drive to a seven-day-a-week show, but I know your feedback will be appreciated in Orlando.

Gary Williams posts a short item on the show's new "AP" studio, named after Golf Channel co-founder Arnold Palmer.

And for Immediate Release:

ALL-STAR LINE-UP OF GUESTS FOR RE-LAUNCH OF MORNING DRIVE, STARTING MONDAY, FEB. 4
 
Bradley, McDowell, Norman, Poulter, Lewis, Pettersen, Creamer, Gal and Munoz Headline Next Week’s Guests

State-of-the-Art "Studio AP" Brings the Outside in with Four New Sets

Morning Drive Debuts a New Seven-Day Format

ORLANDO, Fla. (Jan. 31, 2013) – Morning Drive welcomes an A-List roster of guests next week when the show re-launches on Monday, Feb. 4 at 7 a.m. ET with a new format, a new set, an expanded cast and a new, seven-days-a-week schedule. Headlining the roster of guests in-studio on Monday are 2011 PGA Champion Keegan Bradley, who is making his first appearance in-studio, and 2010 U.S. Open Champion Graeme McDowell.　

In addition, Monday’s show will feature the first official interview conducted in the new Morning Drive studio: a sit-down with co-founder Arnold Palmer. The interview was taped earlier this week after he cut the ribbon on the new Morning Drive set, "Studio AP," which was named in his honor. In addition to the ribbon cutting, Palmer also introduced a new autograph board that will be signed by every guest who visits Morning Drive.

Additional studio guests throughout the week include (subject to change):

Tuesday, Feb 5: Hall-of-Famer Greg Norman, including his arrival via helicopter; 10-time LPGA Tour winner Suzann Pettersen; and 2011 Kia Classic champion Sandra Gal

Take that Tavistock Cup!

Wednesday, Feb 6: Hall-of-Famer Annika Sorenstam, for her first regular weekly appearance; 2012 Sybase Match Play champion Azahara Munoz

Thursday, Feb 7: European Ryder Cup hero Ian Poulter; 2012 LPGA Rolex Player of the Year Stacy Lewis

Friday, Feb 8: Nine-time LPGA Tour winner Paula Creamer　

Joining Morning Drive regulars Gary Williams, Damon Hack and Holly Sonders as co-hosts starting next week when Morning Drive expands to seven days include Golf Channel analyst Charlie Rymer, longtime Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman, Emmy Award-winning sports broadcaster, Ahmad Rashad, 11-time PGA TOUR winner John Cook, Hall-of-Famer Annika Sorenstam, former Golf Digest travel editor Matt Ginella, and host of Top 10 and GolfNow Lauren Thompson. Golf Channel contributors Tim Rosaforte, Brandel Chamblee and Win McMurry also are scheduled to join the show next week.　

Morning Drive’s new studio features four dedicated sets: a main anchor desk, an interview area, a product demonstration area and a news update desk. The new home is nearly four times larger than the show’s original studio. Panoramic, high-definition video backdrops throughout the studio will make viewers feel like the cast is broadcasting from just inside the picture windows of their local clubhouse. This signature look is accomplished by linking 20, 90-inch and 10, 52-inch monitors to create golf course morning vistas.