The PGA Tour Gets It? Volume...

...uh, I'll have to go back in the archives, but we do have a growing list of examples that the PGA Tour continues to move in the direction of downplaying rough, emphasizing the recovery shot, setting a proper example for the game and preparing us for a return to more flyer lie-golf in 2010 when groove rules are changed.

Thanks to reader Al for this Ed Sherman item about Cog Hill, site of next week's BMW Championship:

Received a call from Frank Jemsek the other day. He said he heard us speculating on our radio show ("Chicagoland Golf," WSCR-AM 670, 6-8 a.m. Saturday) about the rough the pros will encounter next week for the BMW Championship.

It turns out the rough might be as rough. Mr. Jemsek, the owner and operator of Cog Hill, said the PGA Tour has asked him to leave the rough at No. 4 at the same level of the facility's other three courses.

"That would be about 2 1/2 inches," Mr. Jemsek said.

"Thoughtful setup equals more fun"

Lance Rigler documents a small but nice example of shifting tees around and how some college golfers are finding it both fun and challenging.

The best examples might have been Nos. 16 and 17. Playing from the tips, the par-5 16th hole featured a back right hole location and gave players all they wanted today. It stretched over 680 yards and played to a 5.13 scoring average.

However, players were immediately rewarded with the par-4 17th, where a good drive could find the putting surface. What a swing of emotions that were produced in that two-hole stretch.

“The kids are saying this is a lot of fun,” said Vanderbilt coach Tom Shaw. “The setup today with some of the tees up and some of the tees back, it really makes them think.”

"We'll have to see."

There was so much to enjoy in Tom Watson's post round press conference, but I most enjoyed the jabs at Augusta National and the R&A for over-the-top course changes. Granted, these things have been said many times before by Watson and others, but something about the setting and the magical week transformed these from mere jabs.

Q. With it all said and done, would you have rather gone through this experience at this stage in your career or have the memories be about things you did decades ago?

TOM WATSON: You mean having a chance to win it again?

Q. Yeah.

TOM WATSON: Well, hell, yes. Yeah, darn right. Winning it again was -- as I said, I don't like to go to Augusta anymore because I feel like I'm a ceremonial golfer there; I can't play that golf course anymore unless I'm absolutely perfect. But out here I have a chance. And I knew I had a chance starting out. So, yeah, I'm glad this happened.

Q. Do you think you'll also have a chance at St. Andrews, which is where next year you'll be, of course?

TOM WATSON: Well, it depends on the wind. If the wind comes from the west there, I have a hard time with that golf course. Hole No. 4 gets me. I can't hit it far enough to get it over the junk. You have the rough there, and it depends on how deep the rough is. I'm driving into the rough all the time. It's like the 10th hole at Bethpage Black there at the first U.S. Open; when they moved the tee back, nobody could get to the fairway.

But I feel like I can play St. Andrews. I still have some of the shots to be able to play that golf course. We'll just have to see. We'll have to see.

The fact that a west wind makes the carry at No. 4 nearly impossible does speak to the silliness of these newly installed tees, but also to player perceptions of R&A setup inflexibility.

Speaking of that, did anyone else notice the par-3 tees at Turnberry? All of the divots were in the same general area. The 11th tee appeared to not move more than a five yards over the four rounds.

"Over time we're going to be experimenting with a lot of different ways to set things up because our hope is that this change is going to make the game more interesting to watch"

After giving a remarkably cogent explanation of the groove rule history--really, not jargon!--Commissioner Tim Finchem was asked this interesting question:

Q. Tim, the only manufacturing company that has objected publicly to the reinstitution of the V-grooves has been a golf ball company so far. Do you have any research indicating that the adoption of the V-grooves will somehow impact the performance of golf balls and therefore affect golf ball companies?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: With respect to companies, I've spent a lot of time talking to manufacturers as you might suspect over the last six weeks. They have different opinions among them on different aspects of the rule and equipment and where it should go and all those things.

You know, all I know is that with this change you're not going to be able to spin the ball as much out of the rough. There's some assumptions that players will as a result, maybe, in some instances, look for a ball that spins more generally. That's not necessarily the case in my view, but it's possible.

With respect to the manufacturer that objected, they were a party that recommended the delay. We looked at the request based on whether or not -- because one of the arguments made was there's not enough time to make the transition, and we primarily were looking at it from that perspective.

We also looked at it from the perspective of the timeline and the fairness issue of delaying after individuals and entities and companies had spent time, energy and resources reacting to the timeline. That was a major concern.

But in terms of how it develops, you know, that's something the players will sort out as they pick up the equipment. They go practice with it and then they make the adjustments that they feel like they need to.

Q. So just real quick, nobody presented you with any research indicating that there would be an impact on a specific golf ball product?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: No, no.

Hmmm...

This was particularly encouraging, but also in an peculiar roundabout way, an admission that course setup took on Draconian measures in response to technology changes:

Q. One more on grooves. Yesterday you said one of the challenges is the qualifiers and that you may look at possibly different rules for that. USGA and R & A are also looking at that. Are you likely to act in lockstep with them or will you act independently regarding rules on qualifiers? And on a different note, do you see with the new groove being implemented next year that course setups may evolve, possibly pin placements get a little more accessible?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Let me answer the second question first because it's more fun. Yes, we do. We have changed our rough heights this year at a number of golf courses and did some fairly meticulous analysis of what happened when we brought those rough heights down a little bit compared to earlier years, and the reason we did that was to set the stage for now measuring what happens on those same golf courses when we shift grooves.

So this will be a -- you're not going to see us revolutionize our setup the first month next year, but over time we're going to be experimenting with a lot of different ways to set things up because our hope is that this change is going to make the game more interesting to watch from a variety of perspectives, and that would be helpful to us. So we're going to be -- we have more people, more energy, we have this wonderful ShotLink program that tells us everything, so we're going to really, I think, enjoy the process of doing some things differently and playing around with it.

"I want the rough up and the greens firms."

I skimmed Tiger's press conference yesterday in search of his grooves answer, but gave this passage another read today:

Q. Thick rough, no rough. What's your preference?

TIGER WOODS: I want the rough up and the greens firms. I want the build [ability?] to have the guys get the ball down there on the fairways, be aggressive off the tees if they want, get the ball down there, but also have the greens firm enough where it rewards guys for being more aggressive off the tees and getting the ball down there so they can control their spins coming in the greens.

I doubt that Tiger gets too involved in setting up Congressional--that would mean actually speaking to people not under his employ--but it still strikes me as odd that he's dictating setup for a tournament he's playing in. Oh I know, it's his event and Jack Nicklaus probably used to make the call on Muirfield Village's setup when he was still active. Still odd, but what's the Tour going to do, tell him to bugger off?

It's also confusing that Tiger selects high rough as a setup ideal. Especially as he's advocating reward for aggressive driving. That said, the transcript was a weird one and I probably should not read much into it.

"There was no drama, then, as the golfers in contention came to the last tee."

Not surprisingly, some writers aren't giving Bethpage's 18th hole final round setup warm and fuzzy reviews.

Lorne Rubenstein writes:

If a championship is going to have a short par-four near the end, the green should be reachable from the tee to set up a possible birdie or eagle. There should also be enough trouble so that a player could make a bogey or worse if he tries to reach the green but doesn’t. Neither was the case with the compromised 18th hole yesterday.

There was no drama, then, as the golfers in contention came to the last tee. They couldn’t drive the elevated green, or get into trouble from the tee. Players whaled away at their drivers, which got them to the bottom of the hill within 50 yards or so of the green. Then it was a pop fly with a lob wedge to the green.

Yawn.

I've also heard the grumbling about a U.S. Open won by hitting 6-iron off the tee and about the lack of short grass in front of the green allowing for a run-up. Also heard that Glover didn't have to do anything significant to do on the last hole to secure the win. (I'm not even going to dignify that other than to say you could put someone on a polo field needing to make four to win the U.S. Open and it would be difficult.)

First off, Tiger Woods hit 4 iron off the 18th tee at Pebble Beach in 2000 en route to winning and I don't believe that tainted his victory.

Next, the 18th at Olympic Club and 18th at Inverness both play about the same as Bethpage's final round yardage of 354 yards. Actually, Bethpage's finisher was more interesting because at least the tee shot involved a decision, as Lucas Glover explained in his post round press conference. The last holes at Olympic and Inverness are all about keeping the ball in play, not about fairway positioning. As Glover pointed out, he contemplated the benefits of each position and ultimately went with the lay-up.

I would love to ask Mike Davis, Jeff Hall, Jim Hyler and Steve Smyers--the four who ultimately decided on this--if they had it to do over again, would they use a different hole location. There's a wonderful hole cut close to the right bunker and used in round 1 that would reward someone for driving it past the bunkers. That would reward a shorter, more controlled shot from the area past the bunkers.

I was standing on the tee when Davis placed the markers and when he consulted with Hall one last time. He anticipated players putting more spin on their second shots than it appeared they were able to Monday. I also noticed that players were not pulling their wedge shots back more on No. 14's front hole, so perhaps the wind firmed the greens up enough to eliminate those shots.

Either way, the 18th hole just stinks and this debate will hopefully not take place next time Bethpage hosts the U.S. Open because a solution will have been figured out.