"Major" Course Pleases Appleby, Induces Naps Here

Andrew Both reports:

In-form Stuart Appleby had no complaints about a solid, even-par 72 in the opening round of the US PGA Tour's Wachovia Championship today (AEST).

"It's playing like a major, not a low scoring course at all," said the Victorian, who trails clubhouse leaders Trevor Immelman and Bill Haas by three shots with half the field back in the Quail Hollow clubhouse.

Wow, give 'em narrow fairways and high scores and it's a major! The game is so sophisticated these days.

Huggan On Governing Body Setup Ploys

John Huggan returns from Open Championship media day and his Geoff Ogilvy chat thinking about the course setup "shenanigans" employed by the R&A and USGA in hopes of masking their regulatory complacency:

All of said shenanigans have had two results: winning scores have remained within what the officials would describe as a respectable range, and at times the players, the courses and the game have been made to look stupid, thereby severely compromising the integrity of the competition.

And...

It is heartbreaking, year after year, to watch the greatest of games being diminished by a failure on the part of the sport's administrators to cap distance. And it will be the same again at Hoylake come July. Given the narrowness of the fairways already and three more months of grass-growing weather, look for a lot of tedious hacking out and not enough opportunity for the better players to separate themselves from the rest by dint of their superior ability to create shots from off the fairway.

For "tricking up", read "dumbing down".

Frank Thomas: 10 Clubs and More Rough

I'm not sure what's more disappointing: that former USGA technical director is advocating more rough and 10 clubs, or that the New York Times continues to print his pieces, even putting the latest column on the main Op-Ed page. 

In an email sent out to his subscribers, the headline read "THOMAS PROPOSES TEN CLUB SOLUTION FOR TOUR," and the subheader said, "Limiting club selection and focus on course set up can help allay technology fears."

In "Golf's Power Failure," Thomas writes:

Now officers and elders of the golf association — which, along with the Royal and Ancient Golf Association of St. Andrews, Scotland, writes the game's rules — have asked manufacturers to study the feasibility of a ball that would travel on average 25 yards less than those used now.

This idea is wrongheaded in several ways. To begin with, mandating such a ball would affect all players, and the vast majority of golfers don't hit the ball too far. (Nor do we hit the ball nearly as far as we think we do; well-supported data indicates that the average golfer hits a driver 192 yards — while thinking that he hits it approximately 230.) It's safe to say that for most of us the great layouts created a century ago still provide plenty of challenge.

Which is why Thomas is advocating change, but not before questioning recent action taken by the USGA to mop up for many of the things that got by his watch:

Even before addressing the ball, the rule-making bodies took several foolish steps. They instituted limits that allowed some spring-like effect from the club faces of high-tech titanium drivers (a phenomenon that let the club itself enhance the ball speed at impact for the first time), while restricting both the length of a driver (which will affect few players) and the permissible height of a tee (which is downright silly). They have also explored limits on how much a club can resist twisting at impact; such a change, like the reduced-distance ball, would have a much greater effect on the average golfer than on those who play for prize money.

Ah, so since this debate has always been part of the game and we should relax a bit, Thomas suggests doing something about it:

The goal should be to keep professionals from mindlessly bombing away while not unnecessarily hurting the average player. I have two suggestions. First, tournament courses should be set up to punish long but wayward hitters by narrowing fairways and growing higher rough (the longer grass along the margins of the hole).

Yes, it's worked so well and cures many sleep disorders. And really, when you consider that fairways are now 20-25 yars, they have so much room to get narrower. I saw the width of a ball would be fair.

The other major change would address the imbalance that today seems to favor power so strongly over touch and finesse. To place greater emphasis on the old skills required to work the ball and to hit less-than-full shots, professional players should be restricted to 10 clubs in their bags instead of the current 14.

What do you think manufacturers would hate more, a ball rollback that doesn't impact anyone under 110 mph, or Tour pros only uh, "branding" 10 clubs instead of 14?

And they say I'm anti-technology!

Trial Balloon

Watching players struggle with 6-8 inch rough at TPC Sawgrass that Tiger Woods took issue with because it compromised Pete Dye's design concept, I couldn't help but wonder what will happen when a player is injured by such a setup tactic.

Imagine an injured wrist, elbow or shoulder caused by rough that was harvested to take driver out of the players hands. And why? Because players might make a few too many birdies and hit 350-yard drives, causing people to notice that the game is out of balance.

Readers of The Future of Golf know that I wrote about the possibility of a player someday suing a governing body over a Meeks-like setup boondoggle, but I think injury is going to come first.

If a player is injured trying to hit out of ankle high, over-fertilized rough watered differently than fairways, will this be shrugged off as a "rub of the green," "that's the risk they take" situation? 

With the USGA's David Fay suggesting at last year's SI Roundtable that he would like to see 8 inch rough heights for shorter holes like Winged Foot's 6th, it seems that the anti-birdie, anti-distance rough is going to be coming to major championship golf. Inevitably someone will get hurt.

How absurd is that?

Tiger On Sawgrass Setup

More from Tiger Woods after Sunday's final The Players Championship, before it becomes THE PLAYERS:

TIGER WOODS: Since I've played here, I've never liked the way they've set it up with the rough high because the golf course wasn't meant to be played that way. I've talked to Pete Dye, and it wasn't meant to be played that way. It's supposed to be hard and fast and all the palmetto bushes are supposed to be coming into play. When we played the Amateur here in '94 that's the way it was, but they've cleaned it up and changed the golf course and changed, I think, how Pete wanted it initially to be played.

Hopefully when we come back here in May, it will be playing like that. Hard and fast is great, but six, eight inch rough, I don't think that's the right combo.

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."

Life In The Fast Lane Not What It Seems

Now posted is my February Golfdom column on green speeds, their impact on scoring and comments about putting made in a recent Nick Seitz story.

Hard Equals ?

Ernie Els at Bay Hill, talking about The Masters:

 "If we have tough weather conditions, it's going to be a very tough week," the world number five said. "It's becoming one of the toughest of the majors now.

"Where it used to be the most fun of all the majors, it's becoming the hardest one now."

I know a lot of people take pleasure in seeing the pros struggle because it makes them feel better about their own feeble golf games.  And I have no problem with that once a year at the U.S. Open.

But I keep wondering if it ever occurs to the folks running the game that when a course is set up just tough enough and still vulnerable to attacks by the best players, it translates to fun for the players, and most likely fun for the fans.  

The point here is rather simple and not a new one, but as you can see, I feel it's worth repeating:  the folks at way too many golf courses make setup about them, and not about the players. It's about producing a certain score, and producing a post-event reaction that has 20 handicappers patting each other on the back for putting those spoiled Tour boys in their place.

Nothing new here, just kind of sad when you realize how intensely selfish it is. 

Tiger On Augusta: Interesting, Very Interesting

Translation: yuck, very yucky.

Amazingly (or is frighteningly), I read all of Tiger's press conferences and continue to marvel at his ability to answer the same questions over and over again. He's also become quite good at acting like he's enjoying some lame question about a player he's played with twice. And he can be so positive when talking about a course he probably thinks is mediocre at best.

So I think it's safe to say--lacking much in the way of complimentary talk--that this is a not-so-flattering assessment of Augusta:

Tiger at Bay Hill:

Q. Speaking of The Masters, now that you've had a chance to play the course firsthand, what do you think of the changes?

TIGER WOODS: Interesting, very interesting.

 Hey, at least he didn't say it was the best of its kind! Sorry, continue...

I didn't hit enough club to No. 4. I needed wood to get to 4. 7 is certainly changed. It's a totally different hole now. 1 is 300 yards just to get to the bunker now. If we get any kind of cool north wind like we have today, you won't be able to see the flag. You won't be able to see the green. Some of the changes are pretty dramatic and certainly going to be very interesting if the wind ever blows.

Q. Do you think they accomplished (inaudible)?

TIGER WOODS: I've talked to some of the older guys who played there back in the '50s, '60s and '70s and they never had to hit wood into 4 before, but you'll see a lot of guys hitting wood in 4 this year.

Q. What do you think will happen if there's rain?

TIGER WOODS: It will be brutal because now you're hitting some really long clubs into the holes. Again, we haven't seen the greens hard and fast either. With the rain, with or without rain last year, we were thinking in the practice rounds that over par is going to win the tournament. If you can keep it around even par, you're going to win it easily.

So, you know this, year, if it stays dry, probably the same thing.

Q. Did anyone ask you about Jack's comments, and do you agree that there's only ten or a dozen or so guys that are capable of winning because of the changes, because of the length?

TIGER WOODS: It eliminates a lot of guys, yeah. If you hit it low and rely on your game that way to get the ball out there and hit your irons not so high, if you have a flatter ball flight, you're going to be struggling there.

Q. If even par were to win there, is it a shame in a sense that you guys already have a U.S. Open?

TIGER WOODS: It's just different. I think it they should get rid of that second cut and get rid of and bring the pine needles and the pine trees back into play. But they see it differently than a lot of us do as players.

I remember pulling that ball off the first tee and it's going straight through the pine trees. Now you have a chance of it stopping in that second cut. They think it's harder to play out of that than it is out of the trees.

Q. Ernie was saying how The Masters used to be most fun major and now it's become the toughest, do you think it has gotten up to that?

TIGER WOODS: Without a doubt, it's gotten so much more difficult now. With the added length, with those greens being the way they are, it just makes it so hard out there. You're hitting clubs that, granted, they are trying to get you to hit clubs like the older guys used to hit, and yeah, but the greens were not running at 13 on the Stimpmeter either. So it just makes that much more difficult now.

With the speed of these greens now, each and every year, it all depends if they are firm. I mean, if they are firm, that golf course is probably the most difficult golf course you'll ever play.

Q. Could you have imagine them dialing some of those changes back a little bit, get rid of the rough or move the tees forward a little bit?

TIGER WOODS: They may move tees around. I think that's what they did with some of the tee boxes. Like on 4 and 7, they are really long tee boxes, so they have the ability to move it around and play with the tee markers a little bit. Because if you get soft, yeah, you can go ahead and move the tees up a little bit and give the guys a chance. So I think that's one of the smart things they have done. 

More Setup Flexibility...

In his latest Golfonline column reviewing the West Coast Swing, Peter Kostis makes this comment:

Speaking of course setups, the PGA Tour needs to give more leeway to the field staff at each tournament to respond to competitive realities and alter the way a course plays. Right now the 54-hole lead is critical! At Pebble Beach, Luke Donald was six shots behind co-leaders Aaron Oberholser and Mike Weir after 54 holes. But the way Pebble was set up that Sunday, with super-difficult pin positions and tees pushed back, there was no way someone was going to shoot a 64 or 65 to make a late charge. That wouldn’t be the case if the PGA Tour field staff had more flexibility. That’s why I love the setup on Sunday at the Masters. If you are playing well, the course can be had and even a six-shot lead isn’t safe.

So what does this mean about the PGA Tour field staff needing more flexibility?

Just typing out loud here, but it sure sounds like Kostis has talked to some of the field staff and that the directive for the Sunday anti-birdie setups is coming from above (that narrows it down to about 400 overpaid VP's!).

Why would those running an entertainment vehicle like the PGA Tour think that a full security lockdown of the hole would make final rounds more fun to watch?

Do they just not get it?

Or is there something else at play here with scoring averages and the technology debate?

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.

Birdies...They're A Good Thing

I don't know about you, but I sensed that special buzz when watching Doral today. The buzz so often lacking these days on the PGA Tour with anti-birdie setups.

Yes, the golf was compelling in spite of the wild driving and widespread low scoring that has the leaderboard still bunched.  Yet the reaction to the low scoring was all too typical.

''I normally like golf courses where 10, 12 under wins tournaments,'' Rich Beem said, "because I think making par, being rewarded with par should not be a bad thing. It's a good thing. Obviously, when the wind is not up and the greens are soft around here, the golf course plays pretty easy, as you can see.''

Thankfully Armando Salguero in the Miami Herald put Beem's comments into perspective.

And that begs this question: So what?

What's wrong with a course that doesn't become the story, but instead allows the golfers to provide the drama? What is wrong with watching the world's great players post scores and make shots that reflect their status?

Phil Mickelson, among those holding Tiger by the tail in a first-place tie, was the one voice of dissent -- and reason -- when asked about the plunging scores.

''I love the way they have set this course up,'' Mickelson said. ``So what if we see birdies. I think that's great. I think it makes for some spectacular and exciting golf.''

Indeed, the Blue Monster would have more teeth if the greens had not been watered so often this week, or if the wind, which notoriously kicks up in early March, were not absent.

But even if the wind doesn't blow, this tournament is a breath of fresh air when compared to the merciless 2004 U.S. Open at Shinnecock, where golfers and their scores were left strewn on the course like so many divots.

''That's no fun to watch, either,'' Mickelson said.

Sahallee Blues

Blayne Newnham, writing about Sahallee deserving another major in the Seattle Times:

There is concern the PGA Championships have outgrown Sahalee and Seattle, that the 27 holes isn't big enough to do the corporate tent thing, that there isn't room for enough spectators, that Seattle has shown less than robust corporate support.

Concern, too, that the course isn't big enough to handle 350-yard drives.

After the PGA in 1998, Kerry Haigh, the director of tournaments, was asked about the tightness of Sahalee's fairways limiting the use of the driver among players.

"It was their choice and it made for long iron shots to the greens," he said. "Some players hit more drivers than others, and none of them, as far as I know, complained."

The PGA of America wanted to expand its horizons, it wanted to bring the tournament to the Northwest.

It found a different and spectacular course, one that could quiet technology with nature.

Or, someone could quiet technology by actually regulating it? Nah, that makes too much sense!

Tall Rough Holes at Winged Foot

In analyzing Steve Elling's story on the plans for longer anti-birdie rough at Winged Foot, I promised photos.

No. 6 at Winged Foot (click image to enlarge)I'm not sure what exactly to say when looking at these shots of the wonderful par-4 6th and the equally neat par-4 11th. Both have already been stripped of their original strategic charm due to the super-narrow setup leftover from the U.S. Amateur. And this is before the extra tall rough is harvested this spring.

But here's what I'd ask you to consider when looking at these wonderful Tillinghast holes, two of which will not see the new "tiered" rough, but instead, tall stuff designed to reduce red scoring.

Looking at the photos, think of yourself being able to carry the ball 310-340 off the tee in warm weather. Would you try to lay up within these narrow fairways or simply try to drive it as close as possible to the green? 

Drives of that distance will bring you within flip wedge range of the green, if not on the green or in surrounding bunkers.
No. 11 at Winged Foot (click on image to enlarge)

In the photo of No. 6, note all of the rough leading up to the leftside fairway bunker. I'm not positive, but I suspect this was meant as a handy little lay-up area to access hole locations tucked behind the front right bunker. I know, that strategy stuff...back when people were allowed to use their brains in the game.

And the narrow fairway on No. 11 is ironic since some width would expose the wonderful rolls and tilt that would take misfires away from the centerline, and toward areas where approach shots would be blocked out by trees. (Hint USGA, that means likely leading to bogies!)

"They've Cashed Our Check"

Len Ziehm reports the news I know you've all been anxious to hear, Cog Hill has retained the Open Doctor. This may just be the cure for my acid reflux.

Cog Hill owner Frank Jemsek had been in negotiations with Jones and his staff for nearly a year in Jemsek's efforts to make the Western Open site a suitable U.S. Open venue. Jones associate Greg Muirhead visited Cog Hill last July before Jones toured the course with Jemsek on Oct. 11. Jemsek revealed during last weekend's Chicago Golf Show that negotiations were successful.

"They've cashed our check,'' said Jemsek, who said work will begin on a limited basis after this year's Western, which ends July 9.

Jones was traveling and unavailable for comment Tuesday, but he noted after his original tour of the course that bunkers will get primary attention during the renovation. Many will be moved and some deepened.

The heart of the renovation will be on Dubsdread's last four holes. No. 15, which plays as a short par-5 now, will become a long par-4 with new tees shortening the hole.

You know, I think we should just eliminate par-5s until we get all birdies out of the game! Oh, sorry...

Nos. 16 and 18, both par-4s, will be lengthened with green-side hazards accentuated. And the par-4 17th, deemed much too easy by Jones, will be completely rebuilt with the green reduced and bunkers added.