Campbell on New Redstone Course

golf2.jpgSteve Campbell looks at the new Houston Open design by Rees Jones and David Toms that is debuting this week.

If the Tournament Course lives up to the reputation of its designer, then the SHO should be a breakout hit. Rees Jones has established himself as major-championship course doctor of sorts, the man the United States Golf Association and PGA of America turn to when they want to upgrade a classic layout. The son of renowned course architect Robert Trent Jones, Rees Jones has performed major undertakings at the likes of Congressional, the Country Club, Bethpage Black, Pinehurst, Torrey Pines, Medinah, Hazeltine, Baltusrol, East Lake, Sahalee and Atlanta Athletic Club.

"I've been very fortunate in my life to have done a lot of these championship venues," said Jones, whose body of work includes Redstone collaborations at Shadow Hawk and The Houstonian. "The more I do, the more I understand what you must do to challenge the best."

Nothing like learning on the job!

To that end, Jones designed a course that plays longer from the back tees than any on tour so far this season. The Tournament Course is also 51 yards shorter than the adjacent Peter Jacobsen/Jim Hardy Redstone Member Course, which served as SHO's halfway home the previous three years. Jones describes the Tournament Course as a "neo-classic" design that favors strategy and shot-making over raw power.

Longest on the Tour so far, but it favors strategy and shotmaking over raw power. Makes sense.

One of the distinctly Toms touches was No. 12. The 338-yard par-4 is, depending on the wind, drivable. With the reward of a possible eagle comes the risk of hitting the tee shot in the lateral water hazard right of the green.

"I'm hoping they set up the golf course to let guys use that risk-reward strategy," Toms said. "We don't get that very often. There's always thousands of people around those holes, trying to see what the pros can do, seeing if they can make an eagle or a double (bogey). They're well-received with the spectators, and the pros like them as well."

Wishful thinking based on this year's course setups.

"The golfer has a choice," Jones said. "I think that's great for a championship. We're making them strategize. The winner will be under par. But we're making him manage his game by the green contours and the angles of the greens. He knows the easy route may lead to a three-putt or the harder route could lead to disaster but has a greater reward."

It all sounds so good.

The Big Bang

gw20060324_smcover.jpgFor over a year now flogging (or Tigerball) has been a much-debated topic on this site and written about on Golfobserver.com, so it was nice to see the Golf World cover story on this radical new approach that younger players are taking.

Ryan Herrington and Tim Rosaforte explore the concept with excellent sidebar support from Dave Shedloski, Matthew Rudy and E. Michael Johnson, focusing on the how the players are able to power the ball via equipment and improved physical conditioning (though in lumping J.B. Holmes in here, they appeared to ignore his comments earlier this year that suggest physical conditioning has little to do with his prodigious length).

The main story is a solid overview with several interesting anecdotes. Though I was disappointed that they didn't explore the role that course setup may be playing in all of this. (The narrower they get, the more pointless it becomes to worry about hitting it in the short grass...).

Loved this from Bubba Watson:

My goal is to hit it inside the white stakes. No matter where it is, fairway, in the trees, as long as I have a swing [I'm happy].

More worth your time is Herrington's blog post on the story. He looks at who in college golf will be the next wave of floggers ("big bangers" just doesn't quite work).

He includes more comments from a coach quoted in the story who talks about the mindset of younger players:  

 “A lot of people look around and say, ‘that’s really different,’ ” says Georgia Tech coach Bruce Heppler. “Well, not to [them] it’s not. It’s second nature. [They've] done it [their] whole life.

“It’s just crank it on down there and deal with it,” he continued. “Because I think they feel like short shots, no matter how hard they are, they’re really not that hard any more. You heard growing up ‘Don’t get that in between yardage. Don’t get that finesse shot.’ Well they laugh at that now. There are no hard shots if you know what you’re doing. They’ve figured out how to get it up and down and how to hit the flop and how much better the wedge is. How much more spin … now you’re reading you can get too much spin. So there are no hard shots if you know what you’re doing. So it just becomes an absolute birdie fest.”

“I think it’s a culture. Guys just play different. I mean I can go up and down my team and it’s little guys and it’s big guys. To see where we play from … that’s one thing about being at a place where you play the same place all the time. We’ve been at Golf Club [of Georgia] for eight years, nine years now. I can’t tell you how different it is. There were par 5s initially they didn’t go for. And longer par 4s now that they just try to knock it on, shorter ones now. Or just get it up there around the green and get it out of the bunker rather than with a wedge.”

And Herrington ends his post with this:

One last point … this philosophy of play in many respects is much like baseball catering to home runs and basketball evolving into dunk contests. Yet while people dig the long ball, that doesn’t mean it’s good for the game. Just as each of the coaches said that the Big Bang theory is practiced in college golf, they all each lamented this fact, longing for the time when shot-making was still important. I have to say I agree with them. By becoming infatuated with distance, players aren’t necessarily better, just longer.

Oh boy, another one to the add to the converted list. This media bias is contagious! 

"Until It's Done, It's Not Done"

Stopped taking Ambien? Well, I have just the organic cure for your sleep disorder.

But first, Commissioner, congratulations on the new 6-year deal. That's your 6-year deal at $4.5 million per year.

And now, the reason you get the big bucks. The floor is yours. Let's get the inevitable fifth major question out of the way:

Stature is something that we don't determine, others determine. At some point along the way in the '50s, stature meant calling The Masters a major. At someplace along the way earlier than that, the Western, which had been called a major, wasn't called a major anymore. Sometime around 1960 when Arnold Palmer wins at St. Andrews and the modern Grand Slam was sort of inaugurated, people sort of started talking about the British Open as a major, although it wasn't until the 1990s that we recognized the British Open as official money on this Tour and took steps to recognize it greater, even though it was clearly recognized as a major. So these things move around.

The British Open sort of was not a major until they sort of recognized it in the 1990s by sort of adding it to the money list. Take that Old Tom!

We were watching a film last [night] at the Past Champions Dinner about the shotmaking that these champions have conducted over the years, and I continue to believe that stature also has to do with people growing up watching things.

Whoa! A Champions Dinner. How original. What's next, azaleas, a champions locker room, a par-3 tournament?

And when a player like J.B. Holmes was 13 watching Freddie Couples make eagle at 16, and that generation grows up, I suspect that that will also impact on the stature of The Players. Where that leads, at least at this point, I'm not in a position to predict.

For those of us who can't remember one Players from another, I'm glad he mentioned how old J.B. was. The 1996 Players? Oh right...Freddie made eagle. I remember it like it was 1996.

Ah, now the fun begins. 

Q. Is it your sense on TOUR that there's a feeling among players of helping rebuild the city's efforts by participating in this year's tournament (in New Orleans)?

TIM FINCHEM: There were two things we were focused on there. One was trying our best to be able to play when a lot of other sports, for whatever reasons, losing their stadiums, were not going to be in a position to play.

But then, secondly, we started to focus on the opportunity to tell a positive story through the tournament about the future of what's going to happen in New Orleans, and that's why we moved our Commissioner's Cup early in the week, which is the CEOs of 50 companies that do business with us, major companies, and we will do a half a day. We will do a half a day briefing is that right?

BOB COMBS: Yeah.

See, that's why Bob gets the big bucks.

TIM FINCHEM: I have to get up to speed.

Oops. Interrupted too soon.

We do a half day briefing with state and local folks so that these companies can understand the vibrancy of what's happening in New Orleans and what the upside is, instead of what we see in the newspaper all the time, whether the dam has really been fixed and isn't it a shame how the Federal Government bungled dealing with it. You don't really see the activity that's going on.

See, it's that liberal, Eastern media elite focusing on the negative. That's what's ruining America! 

Oh, and not to be picky or anything Mr. Commissioner, but they were levees, not dams. Sorry, continue...

We want, through that briefing, and have Rudy Giuliani as our guest speaker for that, seminar if you will, to talk about what can happen. And then on the telecast that week, we will sort of tell that story. And so we want it to be an upbeat, positive message, and we're delighted to be able to participate in that.
Q. But do you feel a sense that the players by their participation feel that they can help rebuild or help the efforts of the City of New Orleans?

TIM FINCHEM: I think so. The quality of the event will also send the right message, too, that business as usual is returning to New Orleans. We're all worried about the tourism side of the equation in New Orleans, and not just the infrastructure getting rebuilt. That tourism needs to come back and be able to demonstrate we've got good quality golf facilities through the golf tournament, which is a big reason we have the tournament there anyways, is an important message as well.

See, it's really all about money telling that positive story.

Hey, time for a question similar to one suggested on this site:

Q. This course by modern Tour standards is not very long as Fred Funk proved last year, and this tournament has a history that you don't have to be a bomber to win here. Why hasn't this tournament followed the trend of extending courses to extreme length?

TIM FINCHEM: Well, I'd say the fundamental reason is that we recognize that the fans like watching this field play this golf course. To me that's the fundamental. And you have to be sensitive to that as you look at, you know, making this change or that change or where the ball is going or the fact now that we may have firmer, faster conditions. And so we have been we have been, I would say, knowledgeably and aggressively reticent, if you will, to make those kind of changes. That's the number one thing
.

Knowledgeably and aggressively reticent. Wow, that could be the title of someone's biography!

The second thing is, I think we do like the notion that we have the deepest field in the game from A to Z, and virtually every one of those players can win. We would not want to move drastically away from that.

Craig Perks agrees.

Having said that, we have been looking at changes for a number of years, and we have made a few changes. I mean, we've moved a few tees over the years. But when we move a tee, we're not moving a tee because we're exasperated that a player is hitting a 7 iron versus a 5 iron.

Ouch, take that Hootie!

The other thing is that we don't want another answer to your question, frankly we're not excited about changes in the golf course being the story at any point in time. We want the golf course and the history of the golf course to be the story and not that myself or some group of people or some group of players got together and decided that it was a golf course that needed to be significantly changed. We don't see that.

Hootie, Hootie, Hootie. Even the Commish is saying you've gone too far and made it all about you. Wish I could be there when you two have your annual Masters stop and chat.

Q. The new schedule in 2007, have you given any thought to the introduction of a drug testing regime, and if not, why not?

TIM FINCHEM: Have I given any thought to?

Q. The introduction of a drug testing regime on the PGA TOUR, and if not, why not?

TIM FINCHEM: We have given a lot of thought to drugs.

Cialis, Levitra, Viagra. You know, potential tournament sponsors. Oops, sorry...

You can't not think about drugs with what is going on in today's sports. Our policies currently are if you're talking about steroids as an example, steroids are an illegal drug. I have authority of my board to require a test of any player who I have reason to believe or our team has reason to believe is using illegal steroids.

We are not opting for and by the way, I have no material information that that is the case with any player. We see no reason to jump into the testing arena at this point without having any credible information that we have issues.

In golf, a player is charged with following the rules. He can't kick his ball in the rough, and he can't take steroids. We rely on the players to call rules on themselves, and if you look at our Tour over the years, many players have, to their significant financial detriment. That's the culture of the sport.

Having said all of that, if, if, if we were to develop any basis upon which it was reasonable to assume that we had widespread steroid use or steroid use of any significance, we would not hesitate to engage, but it would not be a program that you and the public would look at and say, well, this is sort of a halfway program. It would be a program that would determine for sure that we did not have a problem.

If, if, if...speaking of if's, the Commissioner was asked about Fed Ex points...

I think that two things will happen. I think you will see some players play more in the base season. I think the players who have historically played in the fall will play in the fall. I think we'll see probably less European players in the fall because some of their bigger events are going to move back into the fall in Europe, and THE TOUR Championship isn't there to pull them back.

Other than that, I think the fall will probably be as good as it's been. There may be some more starts in that base season; I suspect there will be.

The fall has been so as "good as it's been," that it's being totally revamped and stuck behind the "base season."

Q. Can I just follow up on a very provincial question? Do I take it to understand that Washington is now in danger of not having a PGA TOUR event in 2007?

TIM FINCHEM: I wouldn't call it in danger. Every tournament has to have a sponsor, and we went through the period of talking to Booz Allen and we had very positive discussions with Booz Allen. We maintained a very solid relationship with them there and I think it was excellent of them to offer and commit, actually, to be a million dollar supporting sponsor.

Solid relationship? Can you imagine what the no-so-solid relationships are like?

Now we have to arrange for a title sponsor position. I have every reason to believe we will do that, but until it's done, it's not done.

Got that?

Until it's done, it's not done.

Actually, that was a special coded message to Bob Combs. Translation: these questions are veering coterminously toward a trajectory I find platform unfriendly. 

BOB COMBS: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

TIM FINCHEM: Thank you.

No really, thank you. 

Funk: "they've lost control of the game. I'll swear to that."

Reuters ran with a condensced version of the Fred Funk's comments at the Players. But if you have the time, it's worth reading exactly what he said:

Q. We've seen so much of a tug o'war going on in the game about the power game and bombs away versus skill and precision. Do you feel like it's evolved to a point where power is going to be a requisite skill?

FRED FUNK: Yeah, I feel bad right now. My son loves the game of golf. He's a little guy. He's obviously not going to be physically very big. Not that little guys don't hit the ball a long way, but most little guys don't hit the ball a long way. There's always the exception.

I don't feel with where the game has gone that he will ever have a chance to play on the PGA Tour because he doesn't hit the ball far enough. The kids coming up now are hitting the ball miles. With today's equipment, you just have to it's so forgiving, the driver, I don't think it's the driver so much that's allowing you to hit it a long way; it's the more golf swing givability of the driver that allows you to swing at it. If you're blessed with that swing speed, the ball takes off for you and doesn't come down. Guys are flying it 330, 340 yards right now, which is a joke. It's made designing golf courses a nightmare. It's changed the whole philosophy of the game.

I met with [Arnold] Palmer's group a couple weeks ago, and talking to them about how they design a golf course that's fair for a guy that can hit it 330 and a guy that hits it 270 and where they have to place their corners and place the bunkers and everything else. You can't make it fair.

I really believe, and I know I'm one of the short guys barking with the guys hitting it a long way, so it doesn't get much attention; he's just jealous that he doesn't hit it that far. I truly believe if you're blessed with that kind of ability that you get the benefit of the golf ball, you don't need as much talent as the old players did because you can hit it so far. Just bomb it over all the trouble and you have a wedge or 9 iron into the green, and you're going to hit a lot of greens. I don't care how deep the rough is. And they're strong already, they're going to get it on the green out of the rough, or somewhere around it. I just don't see the skill level, other than just clubhead speed being a big factor in the future.

Q. Some people argue it would be a good thing to have bigger, better athletes, maybe the next wave you'll see a Tour full of 6'4", 240-pounders.

FRED FUNK: That's naturally going to happen because for one, the game of golf has become a great game to play as a kid. Now it's looked upon as a sport; I blame Tiger Woods for it because he's made the game cool. It's a cool game to play as a kid.

The kids are seeing the money we're playing for, they're seeing the personalities we have out here, especially with well, when Tiger came out and was No. 1, but right now our rookie class with Camilo [Villegas] and J. B. Holmes and Bubba [Watson] and numerous others, but those three guys are remarkable guys, unbelievable talent. They hit the ball miles, and they see that, and how can a kid that has a lot of athletic ability and he's fortunate enough to get introduced to the game of golf and doesn't pursue it? He ends up with a linebacker's body and he's playing golf. It's going to happen.

And why it's going to happen it is because it's a cool sport and we're going to have more and more kids playing it at a young age and they're going to develop into some big kids and they're going to be really powerful players. The ball already goes a long way, so the sky is the limit for how far the ball may go in the future with the future golfer.

But it's sad because I think they've lost control of the game. I'll swear to that. I mean, I'll argue that until nobody can prove me different. I'll argue that with every USGA guy that tests every equipment and everything else. They can throw the ShotLink stats out, they can throw everything at me and they cannot change my mind on that. I'm just adamant about the way the game has gone really since 2002, since this last generation of golf ball.

All they really have to do, they don't have to do anything, bring one golf ball back that's talked about or bring the golf ball back, just go back to the golf ball we had before this last change, and it would narrow down that gap between the long and the short.

I don't mind being the shortest guy. I never minded being one of the shortest guys on Tour and competing with a guy that could on the stats he was 295, 300, but when you have guys at 320, 330, 335, I mean, those guys that are averaging that can actually hit it 350; that's a long way. You can't beat that on a lot of golf courses now, and the design guys have no idea what to do.

So they do one thing, they jack the tees back and they don't change the greens. They say, okay, we've got to jack the tees back to protect the golf course from the long guys. You just took all the short guys completely out of it, so now all the long guys are up at the top, unless you have a great putting week, chipping week. I'll get in trouble for that, but that's all right.

Q. I hate to stop you. You skipped the Zurich Classic [in New Orleans] last year, and I understand you're going back this year. How much did the impact of [Hurricane] Katrina have on your decision?

Hey, at least he was an admitted Rally Killer. 

A Blueprint For...?

Steve Elling talks to Arnold Palmer about possible changes to Bay Hill in response to modern day driving distances, something that first came up in his Sunday NBC interview.

Also on Palmer's might-do list is an overhaul of the sixth hole, a par-5 that curls like a semicircle around a large lake. After watching a couple of players blow 300-yard drives across the pond and hit short-iron approaches into the 558-yard hole, he wants to move the green back a few yards. "I think he'll mess that hole up if he does," Retief Goosen said. "I don't think he should mess with 6 -- it's a great hole as it is. It's all about excitement and going for that green [in two] and you'd see more guys laying up."
And this...
His two-year experiment with longer rough seems to have been a mixed bag. By forcing long hitters to play from the fairway, he placed a bigger value on shotmaking. But he also widened the number of potential winners.

Sunday, Palmer wasn't necessarily buying the argument that he had opened the door for pack of middle-tier players at the expense of the big boys like Woods, Vijay Singh and Ernie Els -- all long hitters with lengthy pedigrees at the course. Nor did he necessarily agree that he had retreated to a setup that could produce more winners such as Paul Goydos and Andrew Magee, journeymen who each claimed their lone and biggest tour titles, respectively, at Bay Hill.

If Palmer reins in the bashers, on balance, he likely will have to accept a few middle-tier players as winners.

"You are saying that, I'm not saying that," Palmer said when the notion was posed. "I can't answer that. I don't know. I honestly thought that Tiger would do well [he finished 20th], that this would be a good week for him."

 

SI Player Survey

SI Golf Plus published their 5th annual players poll (subscription req. for link to work).

Some of the more interesting questions and answers:

Who is the second-best player?
Vijay Singh ...... 68%
Ernie Els ...... 12%
Phil Mickelson ...... 8%
ALSO RECEIVING VOTES: Joe Durant, Sergio García, Retief Goosen, myself, Annika Sorenstam

Annika and Joe Durant? So much for the players liking that question!

Did the U.S. make a mistake by invading Iraq?
Yes ...... 12%
No ...... 88%

That thinking may help explain the 56% on this question:

Is having early-round coverage on the Golf Channel instead of ESPN good or bad?
Good ...... 56%
Bad ...... 44%
LOOSE LIPS: "[The Golf Channel] is going to have to get better."

Do you know any pro golfers who have used steroids?
Yes ...... 1%
No ...... 99%

Should the Tour have a written policy expressly forbidding performance-enhancing drugs?
Yes ...... 73%
No ...... 27%

Overwhelming player support, so why doesn't the Commissioner agree? And finally...

Do you favor a rolled-back ball for tournament play?
Yes ...... 28%
No ...... 72%

In 2003, 60% said yes.  

The Dilemma Course Officials Face Across the Country

Bob Harig in the St. Petersburg Times writes:

For the second year in a row,  Tiger Woods  made Doral his personal playground, firing at pins and making birdies as if it were a pitch-and-putt course. His 20-under-par performance that culminated in his 48th career victory Sunday came a year after he set the tournament record at 24 under. Five times in the past 11 years, the winning score has been 18 under or lower. Three more times, it has been 17 under.

Those kind of numbers raised questions last week about Doral's viability as a World Golf Championship venue, which the tournament will become next year.

Wind has always been the course's main defense, and there has barely been a breeze, save for a day or so, during the past two tournaments. Technology, of course, has rendered many courses of long ago a far tamer test. But the lower numbers in recent years have been shocking.

Uh oh, Bob didn't get the memo! That's bias there, because after all, there is no evidence that technology has completely changed the game, just speculation. (As opposed to the overwhelming evidence that "agronomy" is responsible for 350 yard drives.)

Here, history suggests it is odd to see such low scores. But what can tournament officials do? Trick up the course to the point of absurdity?

It is a dilemma that course officials face across the country. Protect the integrity of the course against the best players in the world, or let them go at it?

Or they could be like Doral, probably pretty happy to have Tiger Woods as a back-to-back winner. 

Howell and Elk On WGC's

Andrew Both in the Telegraph:

European Tour Order of Merit leader David Howell has joined the growing chorus of condemnation over the Americanisation of the World Golf Championships."There should be at least one event every year somewhere other than America.

And...

"Obviously, the market is huge here but it is a world game and any opportunity to get the best players to other parts of the world is a great way to grow golf. I'm sure lots of corporate sponsors in America would be happy to see a tournament in China, but we're not having one for some reason."

Howell's comments, strong though they were, paled beside the amazing outburst by Steve Elkington, the Houston-based Australian who beat Colin Montgomerie in a play-off at the 1995 US PGA Championship, but who missed the cut here.

"They're not really world events any more. It's just a fancy name for a $10 million event," Elkington said in a blistering attack on the US Tour, who decide when and where WGC events will be played.

"They're killing world golf everywhere else. Next year we're going to be playing the Match Play in Tucson, Arizona. I mean, who's ever been to Tucson?"

There You Go...

Somehow I don't envision Hogan or Nicklaus getting the kind of questions Tiger faced after winning at Doral again.

JOE CHEMYCZ: The front nine, statistically the computer said zero fairways but nine greens hit and still 3 under par.

TIGER WOODS: Yeah, I didn't hit a fairway, but hit like I guess

Q. You hit two fairways. ShotLink was wrong.

TIGER WOODS: Okay, cool. (Laughter) 3 under, there you go.

Q. How aware were you of the situation when you were playing 17, did you know you were two ahead?

TIGER WOODS: I knew that there was a board there, and after I knocked it over, I looked over at the board and saw that DT had made par, so I had a two shot lead, yes.

Q. Why were you missing left early? Because you had missed right, your misses had been right all week.

TIGER WOODS: Correct.

 

Hawkins Blog

John Hawkins' new Golf Digest blog is evolving nicely. After several fine but pre-packaged feeling posts from La Costa, his latest dispatch from Doral is the best yet. It's just the kind of on-site, insider look that could make blogging from events a huge hit for the online golf sites.

In it, he looks at the mysterious drenching of Doral before the first round.

Accuracy Stats

Dave Shedloski on PGATour.com:

If it seems like TOUR members aren’t concerned with a little thing like hitting fairways, you’re right. Since 2000 the number of players who have hit at least 70 percent of their fairways has been on the decline. There were 75 guys hitting 7 of 10, on average, in 2000, but the number fell to 67 in ’01, then 61, 40, 24, 19, and, so far in this young season, there are only 16 players finding 70 percent (up from seven the previous week – thank goodness for generous fairways on the Monterrey Peninsula).

The last three years the driving accuracy leader has been below 78 percent. Since stats were first monitored in 1980, only five other times has the leader in that category been below 80 percent – and only one other time has the leader been below 78 percent (Calvin Peete, 77.5 percent, in 1984).

Want more? On the other end of the scale, there are 105 players hitting fewer than 60 percent of their fairways thus far in ’06. That’s up more than 100 percent from the 52 such wayward whackers last year. As recently as 2001 only five players failed to hit at least 6 of 10 fairways for the entire season. It doesn’t mean players aren’t as good today; in many ways they’re better. But no doubt they play with different priorities.

It’s likely the winner will not get away with such untidy play on the narrow avenues of Riviera (but because the fairways are narrow, hitting them is always chore).

The question is, how much is this decline a result of flogging, and how much of it has to do with the excessive narrowing of fairways?