Sandomir on Streaming

us open icon.jpgRichard Sandomir writes about the trend of online streaming and the USGA's plan to carry action from the 6th at 10th holes at USOpen.com. He also writes:

This will be the sixth year that the United States Golf Association will post streaming video from the Open. It did one hole the first year, and has done two holes ever since. This year, the group decided that Winged Foot's par-4 sixth hole, "the Pulpit," one of the course architect A. W. Tillinghast's masterpieces, was must-see viewing, as was the par-3 10th hole.

Of course No. 10 is definitely the "Pulpit" while No. 6 is actually "El" (as named by Tilly himself).

Oh To Be A Subscriber, Synergy Edition

Some of you longtime readers may recall that at various times I've had trouble receiving my golf publications here in the very remote, isolated Home of the Homeless (only about 9 million neighbors in my county).

Anyhow, I know you were dying to know about my Golf World subscription. Yes, it's back up and running. But when the post office apparently determined one of my issues was undeliverable, the good folks at Conde Nast decided to put a stop on my Vanity Fair, New Yorker and Golf Digest subscriptions too!

Synergy is a beautiful thing.

Anyway, it's all good now, And not only that, but my Sports Illustrated Golf Plus has arrived three weeks in a row!

Kostis: Where's The Cry For Wie-Proofing?

Maybe one too many weeks doing CBS infomercials telecasts has blurred his vision, because Golfonline columnist Peter Kostis (and Titleist "Golf Products Design Consultant") publishes a doozy with his latest attempt to tell traditionalists that they have it all wrong:

...Tiger Woods won the 1997 Masters and courses felt they need to become Tiger-proofed. Many facilities around the world added length and started cutting holes closer to the edges of the green. For golf traditionalists, the idea of playing par 4s with a driver and a wedge was just blasphemy, and boring as well.

Have those purists bothered to watch an LPGA Tour event lately?

Actually, not really.

Sorry, you were saying...

Proportionate to the length of the courses they play—typically between 6,300 and 6,500 yards—the women on the LPGA Tour are getting as long off the tee as the guys. Just look at this chart:

Longest Hitters on LPGA and PGA Tour by Year
1999     260.7 (Jean Bartholomew)     305.6 (John Daly)
2000     270.1 (Caroline Blaylock)     301.4 (John Daly)
2001     265.8 (Wendy Dolan)     306.7 (John Daly)
2002     269.3 (Akiko Fukushima)     306.8 (John Daly)
2003     269.7 (Annika Sorenstam)     321 (Hank Kuehne)
2004     270.2 (Sophie Gustafson)     314 (Hank Kuehne)
2005     270.3 (Brittany Lincicome)     318 (Scott Hend)
2006     288.7 (Karin Sjodin)     321 (Bubba Watson)

Now let me ask you this: Have you heard anyone say that the LPGA needs to do anything to its courses in response to players getting longer? I certainly haven’t.
How do I explain this deep, very complicated concept?
 

You see, your typical LPGA tournament course is 6800 yards from the tips and the LPGA is playing it at 6300 yards.

So let's say they need to add some length to offset the advances in agronomy and instruction, so they just go back to the 6600 yard tees, and they have another 200 to spare.

Cost? $0. Nada. Zilch.

Shocking as it may seem, people are irked when courses add length, take out trees, shift bunkers, blowing up rock and in general, spend ridiculous amounts all so that the grown men can keep shopping free of regulation.

In fact, Michelle Wie is creating a global fan base and earning millions in endorsements because she is not only young (16) and attractive, but overpowering LPGA courses exactly the way Tiger overpowered Augusta back in ’97.
Now, I think the world of Wie and tire of the "she needs to learn how to win debate." But uh, Tiger was winning in 1997 and doing it in a way that was clearly going to change the men's game, and therefore, the courses tournaments are played on. 
Is there an outcry that Sjodin is hitting it 18 yards longer than the 2005 distance leader like there was for Kuehne in 2003? I don’t think so! Are people blaming a new golf ball for the sudden 18 yard increase in distance at the top of the LPGA stats?
No, it must be the agronomy and improved diet that helped Annika pick up, oh, 50 yards.
Nope! Is anyone complaining that LPGA play has become boring? To the contrary, it is more exciting than ever!

So to conclude this dark conspiracy? Get ready to laugh...

This is yet another sign of just how sexist golf can be.

Oh, it gets better.

Seriously, there are only about 40 men in the world capable of overpowering a course. But the knee jerk reaction to these players has created a call not only for courses to be lengthened, but restrictions be placed on equipment and the golf ball.
Only 40 men in the world capable of overpowering a course? A knee jerk reaction has created a call? Uh, it's not 40 and it's not a call anymore, just ask the course owners who've spent millions and millions of dollars or the Winged Foot members who spend $500k to build a new tee on No. 12 that will be used twice next week. 
If you are going to talk about what’s good or bad for golf, please have the courtesy to remember that women play too.

This could be one of those turning point columns that awakens even fence-sitters to just how far-fetched and comical the pro-distance shilling has become.

Wie Coverage Watch

Michelle_Wie.jpgThere was something retro and really fun about following Brett Avery's live hole by hole account of Michelle Wie's quest to qualify for the U.S. Open. You'll get the same old time vibe by checking out this photo gallery from GolfDigest.com.

It's funny that PGATour.com had the best coverage of Wie's quest today while GolfDigest.com tried three different links to scores (Met, TGC, ESPN), SI had nothing but AP stuff and USGA.org kicked the day off with its annual rehash of its merchandising success story (and scores only updated after each nine holes).

Golf Channel and Rich Lerner came through with an excellent wrap up show that you would hope they might do every year for the Sectionals, and not just the times Michelle Wie tries to qualify.

But it was Avery's hole-by-hole account, and his (Bernard) Darwinian obervations that stole the show. Not only because it allowed us to get a feel for this unique event in golf history via the Internet, but Avery and the Tour may have ushered in a new era in golf coverage. With the length of a golf round and the spread-out nature of a course, no other sport lends itself to a writer using a Blackberry type device (I'm pretty sure these were written accounts) to contribute real time blog updates.

blackberry.gifIt wasn't perfect. You had to refresh the page instead of the page doing an automatic refresh like a typical PGATour leaderboard, but that's a minor detail they can work out. Imagine a similar on-course blog at a major where the writer follows the last group and offers supplemental online coverage for viewers at home wondering what went on with a ruling or what Tiger was saying to Stevie when they appeared to not agree on something.

Still, it requires an observant writer willing to take a few changes, and Avery, the former Golf Journal editor who covered the rise of Tiger Woods, was more than up to the task of putting Wie's historic run into perspective.

We can only hope PGATour.com will send Avery to Winged Foot so that web readers can get such a unique, inside-the-ropes account and that other golf news organizations will experiment with this novel form of reporting.

For a distinctly old school summary of the events, here's Dave Anderson column in the New York Times.

For final sectional results, check out this USOpen.com link.

Whitten On Major Venues

gd200607_cover.jpgNoticed this in the table of contents for July's Golf Digest:

Back to Royal O.B.
Royal Liverpool is no place for a major in the 21st century.
By Ron Whitten

It is interesting to see the continuation of Whitten's shift from defender of major venue changes to questioning the relevance of older venues in the modern game and attempts to set them up in the face of massive change over the last ten years.

You may recall his preview of Augusta's changes was less than flattering after having been an initial defender in 2001-02, while his Winged Foot preview appeared skeptical of the USGA's tiered rough and was marked by an underlying tone that rain may could easily render the course defenseless.

It's nice to see someone at Golf Digest putting their name on strong commentary. And it's great to see someone provoking reader thought on the technology issue, its impact on classic courses and setup, and the ramifications for the game in general. 

Blog Bomb?

The latest Golf Digest entry into the blogosphere may be the most bizarre yet, as E. Michael Johnson and Mike Stachura engage in back and forth exchanges under the names "Bomb" and "Gouge" that not only prove difficult to read (anyone heard of an enter key?) but mostly seems to engage in the same old attempts to smooch up to equipment manufacturers.

Why not a straightforward blog on the latest equipment, rumors about clubs in development or buzz on what elite players are using?

Instead, the blog has started off as another chance to tell us that grown men must be allowed to continue to shop free of interference from the big, bad regulators.

But at least the writers in question are trying a different approach, and trying to keep it light and even self-deprecating. Which is more than you can say for...

Tour Should Bring Majors To New Orleans!?

Dan Daly, writing about the need for major sports to give New Orleans a chance, writes:

Memo to Tim Finchem: Would it kill you to hold a major golf championship somewhere in the New Orleans area? For goodness sakes, the PGA was once held in French Lick, Ind. (In 1924, to be exact. Walter Hagen beat Jim Barnes, 2-up, for the title.) How about cutting the Crescent City a break?

Shouldn't a Fox/Washington Times sports columnist know that the PGA Tour does not control the major championships.

Media Relations For Beginners?

Now I know that credentialing bloggers to professional golf tournaments could result in a total nightmare for tournaments around the world, but this story about the denial of credentials for the Golf For Beginners bloggers over at travelgolf.com raises a few questions.

Here is a Tour whose press rooms serve as meditation chambers most days, turning away folks who, if you take the time to scroll their posts on the LPGA Tour, are friendly to the cause and doing it on a busy web site. 

And they want to cover your tour...a tour that struggles to get any coverage...a tour that considers itself cutting edge with their personal branding coaches and marketing-wiz for a Commissioner.

Old Course-Winged Foot-Pebble Beach In A Day...With Bobby Clampett!

George Peper's latest Links column looks at his unique one day feat of playing St. Andrews, Winged Foot and Pebble Beach in a day, which is a big deal until you realize that he did it with Bobby Clampett.
 On July 18, 1983, my foursome completed 18 holes on the West Course in precisely two hours and 16 minutes. If that doesn’t take your breath away, consider this: 1) on that morning we’d traveled more than 3,500 miles to get there; 2) it was our second round of the day; and 3) that afternoon we went another 18 holes—and another 2,500 miles.

I was editor of GOLF Magazine back then and one of my core duties was to make noise for the magazine—occasionally do nutty things that attracted attention and, by extension, readers and advertisers. In a moment of questionable inspiration I came up with the notion of playing St. Andrews, Winged Foot and Pebble Beach in 24 hours.

I wonder how many weather forecasts Clampett issued?

Bomb and Gouge!?!?!

bombers1.jpgPeter Morrice has the first Golf Digest feature/instruction story on flogging, only he employs Chuck Cook's "Bomb and Gouge" label instead of Johnny Millers' "just flog it out there" line. 

I guess flog does have that negative semordnilap thing going against it, after all, it is...golf backwards. And why ever contemplate the negative when you can milk it for an instruction piece AND run photos of pros from the 18-34 demo! 

Today's tour bombers are not only crushing drives, they're establishing a new style of play: Bomb & Gouge. The thinking goes, bomb driver as far as you can and, if need be, gouge the ball out of the rough and onto the green. Golf's long-held ideal--fairways and greens--is giving way to this aggressive new style. Even from the rough, these power hitters say they can take advantage of shorter approach shots and create more birdie opportunities.

"I like hitting driver as much as possible because it gets me closer to the hole," says J.B. Holmes, another super-long rookie and winner of the FBR Open in February in just his fourth start on tour. "Hitting driver gives me the advantage of being 50 yards past other guys. If I hit 3-wood, I'm back where everybody else is."

Here's where it gets fun:

"The biggest factor in distance is that players are just now learning how to launch the ball at optimum conditions," says Tom Stites, chief of product creation at Nike Golf. "It's the technology of the equipment, yes, but it's also the technology of the selection process."

Another major factor is the modern ball. Tour players today hit multilayer, urethane-cover balls that spin less off the tee than wound balls of a decade ago. With the right impact conditions, players launch the ball high but with a lower spin rate, which lengthens but also straightens the flight (reducing spin reduces sidespin as well).

"With the [Titleist] Pro V1, the longest hitters went to bed one day and woke up the next 20 yards longer," says Jim McLean. Ball manufacturers continue to isolate the best flight characteristics, and ball-fitting has become a standard part of the equipment-fitting process. "Matching the ball to the driver being used has been a bigger variable than the equipment itself," says Dave Phillips, co-founder of the Titleist Performance Institute.

Of course, these people are all delusional if you believe the USGA. bomberchart.jpg

Speaking of them, to your right is a Golf Digest chart that the Far Hills group would look at and say, "it's the grooves." (Instead of understanding that greens in regulation will go up when you are hitting more lofted clubs into the holes!):

Then there's this from Morrice and Jack Nicklaus:

As hot as the power game is, it's hardly new. Top players have often had a distance advantage, but they've usually used it cautiously. Jack Nicklaus was the bomber of his generation, but he played a decidedly conservative game. Nicklaus was famous for plodding his way around with 3-woods and 1-irons off the tee until he needed a big drive. Then he'd hammer one 50 yards by his playing partners. "I played a power game," Nicklaus says, "but I always believed the game of golf was a game of power when you need it, but placement and positioning was the more important part of that game. Today, the game to me is power. I don't think the other part is even there."

And this from Hank Haney:

"A few wild shots have always been an acceptable price for Tiger to pay in exchange for dominant length," says Woods' coach, Hank Haney. "The top players play the power game--and prove over and over that distance is king, especially when you have the ability to hit great recovery shots."

This is where things get weird:

Many golf insiders argue that course setups play right into the power player's hands. "Until the tour and other events narrow the fairways to 25 yards and grow the rough to four or five inches, they'll continue to bomb it," says Butch Harmon. "Golf used to be driving and putting, and it still is, only getting the ball in play doesn't matter anymore."

I guess Butch hasn't been watching, but uh, the more they narrow the fairways and grow the rough, the more it encourages flogging!

Don't you just love watching golf turn inward on itself, all to protect the...ah I won't go there.

One idea for putting a premium back on driving accuracy would be to "lower the floors of fairway bunkers so that they're real hazards," says White. "We can't just grow up the rough to six inches. The members at [our tournament sites] would not be able to play their own golf course."

Hey, those will drain well!

Really, how long before we start putting alligators and snakes in the roughs all to protect the...I said I wouldn't go there, and I won't.

Television analyst David Feherty, a former Ryder Cup player, agrees that shotmaking has changed but thinks it's for the better. "I stand up on the tee [at tour events] and look out at a fairway 350 yards out. I put my thumb on one edge of the fairway and my finger on the other--it's like 2 1/2 inches, and these guys are ripping it down the middle," says Feherty. "If that's not shotmaking, I don't know what is."

Now, wasn't he the guy who just last week advocated changing the ball to restore shotmaking?

USA Today On Distance Myths, Readers React...Sort Of

Jerry Potter and Tom Spousta of the USA Today do their best Judith Miller imitation by wheeling out the USGA's Distance Myth press release...as if they came up with this propaganda on their own! That's right, instead of noting that the "myths" came to them as a release, they report having "consulted" with the USGA's Dick Rugge.

The USA Today: all the prepackaged news that's fit to regurgitate.

Anyhow, they follow up their myth "research" with more hard hitting reporting, this time calling on Rugge and Wally Uihlein to fill up most of a story about what was supposed to be reader feedback on distance regulation, titled "Readers Decide It Must Be The Ball." In the story, we hear from a whopping three readers, with two saying the ball needs to be rolled back.

But first some really, like, you know, like really heavy discussion of the meaning of myth.

The power of myth has long been a steadying influence for people, allowing them to believe what they want to believe often when it flies in the face of scientific evidence.

"In most cases when there is a myth," says Wally Uihlein, chairman and CEO of Acushnet Company, which makes Titleist golf balls, "there is a symbol of something that can't speak for itself. It's assigned supernatural power."

Like a golf ball.

Ah yes, the poor, picked on golf ball! We're all delusional! It's the agronomy, it's the ster...sorry, continue.
To the question posed last week about lengthening courses or reining in technology to combat the game's long bombers, many readers zoned in on the ball.

"I am completely in favor of reining in the distance a golf ball travels by adopting standards for the ball and the club," responded Timothy W. Broos of Dixon, Ill. "There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 275-yard drive being impressive and a 440-yard par-4 being long."

Fred Daum, the retired golf coach at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., wrote in an e-mail that "it's a no-brainer" to rein in equipment because it's destroying the traditional venues for the game, and its past heroes. He laid the blame on the U.S. Golf Association for not controlling technology.

Well, enough of those pesky readers! 
Dick Rugge, the USGA's senior technical director, gets similar e-mail at his headquarters in Far Hills, N.J., but he says, "We don't believe the ball needs to be changed at this time."

Yes, we kind of got that from the distance myths memo.

Uihlein says there always have been periods when technological advancements stirred concern and brought predictions of ruin. That included changes in the construction of the golf ball and golf clubs, made possible by new materials and production processes.

"There was a similar noise level when Sam Snead and Ben Hogan became prominent (in the late 1930s)," Uihlein says, "and were hitting the ball long distances. That was a time when we went from hickory shafts to steel shafts."

You know, I've looked through a lot of old golf magazines in the late 1930s, and it's kind of hard to even find Ben Hogan's name mentioned, much less stories about technology impacting the game. And actually, all of the late 20s and early 30s talk centered around the ball, not the clubs. Ah how times haven't changed.

"If we only made rules only for the Tour," Rugge says, "our job would be easy. We make the rules for the 28 million people who don't play professional golf."
Most are amateurs with double-digit handicaps, and they don't drive the ball 300 yards.

"People say, 'Roll back the ball 10%,' " Rugge says. "If you do that, then a guy hitting the ball 300 yards off the tee will be hitting it 270. But someone hitting it 200 will be at 180."

Rugge added that a blanket reduction wouldn't even be good for all Tour players.

Oh right, because long hitters don't get a disproportionate boost from today's equipment. I forgot.

Uihlein says distance is a factor of more things that just the ball. It's the club; it's the course conditions; it's club fitting; it's the athleticism of the players.

"You don't control the athleticism of the players," he says.

Well, a little steroid testing wouldn't hurt.

"Technology," Uihlein says, "has had a democratizing effect on golf. Without it we'd have far fewer people playing golf. One thing we know: As long as people believe they can play better, they continue to play. When they don't think that, they quit."

Ah...now, I wonder if there are "facts" to support the claim that people would play less if they had less frequent shopping opportunities? Or is corporate pro-technology bias?

And remember, as long as the illusion of getting better through purchasing power exists, they'll keep playing. Now that is touching.

Hey, but at least one reader chimed in on the good side:

Joshua Reynolds of Lee's Summit, Mo., agrees: "For those of us who can't cream the ball 330 yards, we need the extra distance. ... 'Dear USGA & PGA. Please let the average Joe enjoy his round of golf with whatever ball he wants to play."

Send that man a dozen Srixon's!