Opportunistic Whining? Tours Had A Seat At New Rulemaking Table

You all may recall chief Keith Pelley chirping on behalf of outraged European Tour players at the sheer non-game-growing new rule that cost Haotong Li two strokes, though as I noted at the time you didn’t hear PGA Tour players griping because they clearly were more up on the new rules. And Pelley was taking his tour to Saudi Arabia, so a distraction card was also being placed on the table.

When the PGA Tour players started running into issues in Scottsdale, the inevitable cries of rulemaking unfairness were followed by the cheers from current and former players for the PGA Tour finally showing the amateurs in St. Andrews and Liberty Corner how it’s done. The PGA Tour’s statement after the McCarthy episode:

“It is clear that there is a great deal of confusion among players and caddies on the practical application of the new rule during competition, as well as questions surrounding the language of the rule itself and how it should be interpreted,” the Tour announced in a statement on Saturday. “As a result, with the full support of the USGA and the R&A, the rule will be interpreted whereby the two aforementioned situations as well as future similar situations will not result in a penalty.”

One problem, the PGA Tour and the European Tour were all in on the new rules meetings, as was the PGA of America.

Rex Hoggard at GolfChannel.com takes a tough but appropriate stance on any PGA Tour player and executive revisionist history.

Although the Tour has had a voice in the rule-making room for some time, the USGA and R&A agreed to give the circuit, as well as the PGA of America, more influence over potential changes when the organizations found themselves at odds during the anchoring debate a few years back. The Tour, which is represented on the rule-making front by senior vice president of competitions Tyler Dennis, may not have veto power over potential changes but it does have a prominent seat at the table.

For the Tour to dig in against the new rule, or at the least the rule’s ambiguous language, just as public opinion against it was poised to reach a crescendo, seems opportunistic if not duplicitous.

Ultimately the mistakes lie in not having a soft unveiling of these rules and perhaps a few fall events to work out the kinks, not necessarily in the rules themselves. At least, most of them.

While We're Reviewing Dysfunctional New Rules: The Grace Drop Technique And Green Reading Books Need Revisiting

Now that the governing bodies are working overtime to deal with the alignment rule after conceding a lack of success, the navy and grey slack set needs to clear more space on their emergency meeting agenda.

I’ll start with the drop problem spotted by readers John A and June who correctly noted Branden Grace’s incorrect drop on 17 of the Waste Management Phoenix Open. Or was it incorrect? After all, he’s almost around knee height as his knee is positioned! (See above.)

The rule changed was explained this way:

• How a ball may be dropped is simplified; the only requirement is that the ball be let go from knee height so that it falls through the air and does not touch any part of the player’s body or equipment before it hits the ground.

The overall absurd look of the knee height concept can go any day now. It will not speed up the game. Or grow it.

Meanwhile, the Forecaddie explains why you saw players consulting green books seemingly as much as ever at the WMPO. Because the change in spec allowances are not working according to Adam Scott.

“I think the rule has not done anything to change their impact,” Scott said.

But hey, the flagstick rule we definitely can keep!

Why Have Golf's Better Athletes Only Picked Up 1.3 M.P.H. In Clubhead Speed Over The Last Decade?

The USGA and R&A have released their annual driving distance report and the pro tour’s saw a 1.7 yard increase on top of last year’s 3 yard increase.

Given how much we’re told the recent spikes are a product of increased athleticism—not equipment innovation or launch monitors or instruction—the gain of just 1.3 mph in swing speed since the players started traveling with foam rollers, eating raw cauliflower and taking their core work more seriously seems paltry.

From David Dusek’s Golfweek story on the report:

Compared to the earliest radar data available, which came in 2007, ball speed is up almost 4 mph, drives start 0.3 higher and with almost 200 rpm less spin. At the same time, the average clubhead speed on those drives has increased from 112.4 mph to 113.7 mph. This would indicate that while the pros on the PGA Tour are swinging faster as a group, their equipment and swings are becoming more optimized and efficient.

Athleticism nice, algorithms nicer.

Meanwhile in his Golf World assessment, Mike Stachura attempts to downplay yet another increase in driving distance across the board by ascribing a percentage decline to the increase.

According to the report, the average increase in driving distance across all professional tours in 2018 was 1.7 yards over 2017. While that number is significantly higher than the trend from 2006-2016, it is more than 40 percent less than the gain seen in average driving distance from 2016 to 2017.

More than 40%! Nothing to see here!

Finally, the most interesting thing I saw in the report—besides huge spikes in drives over 320 yards powered by that 1.3% clubhead speed increase—was a yellow color coded admission that “stability through regulation” ended in 2016. Translation: our rules stopped working the last two years. Interesting choice of words.

"Absurd" Has Insurmountable Lead In New Drop Rule Sweepstakes!

The voting suggest the new drop rule is not going over well so far.

After we discussed today on Morning Drive today I heard from several asking the genesis of a lower drop height, answered here in the Golf.com roundtable:

Michael Bamberger, senior writer: The knee-drop looks ridiculous. It exists for a very limited purpose, to stop multiple drops on slopes. I think the professor has it right: a better rule would be to drop anywhere from knee to shoulder height. 

The USGA’s Thomas Pagel also explained to Rex Hoggard at GolfChannel.com that the new drop location, changed from a 1-inch above ground height in the first proposal to knee height, was part of a “package deal.”

“It’s not just a drop from knee-height, but now it’s a focus on the relief area. People say that dropping from shoulder-height is simple, and it is, but under the old rules, there were nine different times you had to re-drop. We wanted to eliminate all those complications,” Pagel said.

“In order to focus on that new relief area, we said, 'Let’s get the player closer to the ground, and if you drop it from knee-height, that ball is going to bounce a little less.'”

Ultimately, however, the act looks awkward. Any player wanting to drop from higher up whether for personal, political or pure inflexibility reasons should be allowed to without the potential for penalty (which is incurred after playing a shot if the drop was not from knee height).

USGA, R&A Budge In Final Green Reading Book Ban

The full release is here. Golfweek’s Brentley Romine has the highlights of the final announcement.

Here is what was gleaned from the feedback period of the green reading book limitations presented this summer:

Some of the changes made to the original proposal following the feedback period include the removal of: (1) the proposed minimum slope indication limit of 4% and (2) the prohibition against using handwritten notes to create a copy or facsimile of a detailed green map.

Additions to the original proposal include: (1) a new size limit for the printed book/material (restricted to pocket-size), (2) a new prohibition against magnification of putting green information and (3) a new requirement that any hand-drawn or written information must be in a book or on a paper meeting the size limit and must be written by the player and/or his or her caddie.

Reading Mike Stachura’s Golf World account, the author sounds pretty skeptical of Thomas Pagel’s claims on behalf of the USGA suggesting that the limitations will still limit these books in competition.

The new interpretation, however, seems to shift from some of the original proposal’s fundamental convictions. In July, Pagel said, “Basically, the books are giving them a recommended line, and that goes too far. The skill of reading a green was diminishing, quickly going away. And we wanted to make sure it was retained.” But there were two factors that seemed to sway the decision away from specific restrictions on the information in any green-reading book. One was history, and the other was enforcement.

“First, we know the ability to take notes has been part of the game for a very long time, and we did not want to get away from that,” he said. “I also heard loud and clear about the challenge of enforcing the rule. Players were asking, How do I know if my notes are OK? and How do I know if the notes another player has on the other side of the fairway are OK?”

Will this turn out to be another anchoring ban that ultimately leaves people wondering if players are skirting the rule? I hope not.

USGA, R&A Ask For Your (Distance) Survey Time

The USGA/R&A distance survey is a bit like a Robert Trent Jones design: needlessly long, seemingly takes longer to get through than you think, isn’t the most rewarding experience and you’d never do it again.

But unlike some tired old RTJ effort, this one really won’t cost you a dime and will entertain at times if you are intrigued by reading between the lines or general survey construction.

If you have a few minutes, please share your thoughts no matter your place in the game. In fact, the governing bodies have made a special point to let every day golfers know their input is most valued.

It took me about 12 minutes to complete, sparing them of any Max Behr copy and pasting or Statement of Principles jabs. I figured those would not be productive roads to take.

Here is the USGA version of the distance survey, and the R&A version can be found here.

Enjoy!

R&A Rules Chief Rickman Confident New Rules Will Speed Up Play

As the USGA and R&A rolled out the actual written Rules of Golf coming in 2019—please give them clicks, much editing went into this!—Golfweek’s Alistair Tait asked the R&A’s David Rickman about the proverbial elephant in the room: spike mark tapping.

While spikes are virtually gone, the idea that players can massage their line continues to not sit well with many, including yours truly, who is struggling to reconcile playing the ball as it lies while being freed up to manipulate the ground between your ball and the hole.

Besides the philosophic disconnect, Tait zeroes in on the past lessons learned from allowing spike mark tapping on the European Tour and Rickman says times have changed.

“It was an area in the extensive discussions that we talked about for some time because in all of this we were interested in speeding the game up, and this change in particular could potentially even go the other way. But what I would say is that it does present a completely different dynamic,” he said.

“I think we’ll see people repairing damage as a collective at different times. I think what you will also see is that the putting green surfaces will generally be maintained throughout the day through the actions of all the players at different times in a much higher standard. So those players at the end of the are only repairing the minimal damage that hasn’t already been repaired. I think in reality it will work.”

I don’t. And this is someone who believes in Rickman’s views on the rules. Primarily, I just can’t see how you can instill a “play it as it lies” mentality in today’s players or future generations when you can now make it lie on the greens. They already complain when all 18 greens are not of the same firmness and speed, and providing a free-for-all to manicure lines seems like less of a slow play issue and more of a core value undermining problem.

Certainly a case could be made that introducing spike-mark tapping could have alleviate pressure on supers to present perfect conditions. But the first time you watch an elite player turn golf into curling by massaging their line, I’m confident you’ll miss the old play it as it lies days.

We’ll find out soon enough!

Time For Amateurs To Look Like Amateurs Again

Stories recommending how to make the U.S. Amateur more relevant have been written for some time now.

Doug Ferguson wrote this one back in 2005 that I blogged about.

I penned a Golfweek story last year suggesting that U.S. Amateur winners retain their U.S. Open exemption whether they turn pro or not.

Once counted as a major by Jack Nicklaus and a vital championship on the golf calendar, the U.S. Amateur has drifted to the back pages and in the ratings division. The amateur game has been weakened by few lifelong amateurs and players turning pro at increasingly younger ages.

But after last week's U.S. Amateur, I'm convinced the event is also undermined by players looking like pros. Maybe it's too subliminal and maybe the trend is irreversible, but I was struck by how many people noted when a player wore a corporate-affiliated hat or looked too much like a professional golfer.

College gear didn't seem to offend even though some of America's finest institutions might as well be corporations. Seeing a player advertising their school reminds us they are still an amateur. But young players looking like PGA Tour pros, down to scripted outfits and an overpolished look envisioned in a corporate meeting room, strips the event of its integrity.

Here is what the USGA's FAQ on Amateur Status says about free equipment and, in particular, clothing:

Yes. Even if you have golf skill or reputation, you may accept a reasonable amount of golf balls, golf clubs, clothing, shoes and other merchandise from a company or source dealing in these types of equipment (e.g., equipment manufacturer or golf shop). However, if you are considered to have golf skill or reputation, you must not advertise or promote the source of the equipment.

The act of wearing a scripted, logoed outfit and hat would seem to fall under the definition of advertising or promoting the source of your free equipment. Particularly the hat. 

The USGA did once try to regulate the logos, according to former Executive Director David Fay, who recalled amateurs at the 1989 event even being asked to cover manufacturer logos with duct tape. The USGA even offered the amateurs who made it to the TV rounds a free host-Club logo hat.  

"But it all started to feel (and look) silly to duct tape “Titleist”, when more and more 15 handicappers started wearing equipment-manufacturer hats and carrying equipment-manufacturer bags and head covers," says Fay.    

Indeed, golf has the equivalent now of cyclists who stumble into Starbucks in the logo-clad tights, as if they'd just finished the Bourg-Saint-Maurice Stage in the Tour De France. Logos are pervasive in our culture and even an attempt to look stylish or to subscribe to some sort of lifestyle brand. 

Nonetheless, amateurs sporting their preferred manufacturer's logos as a thank you for free equipment constitutes advertising as defined by the Rules of Golf. Worse, the look undermines the amateur in United States Amateur.

Bring back the duct tape. 

Distance Insights Project Goes Global To Confirm Good Players Are Driving The Ball Longer Than Ever

And now, a survey...

The USGA and The R&A to Engage Global Golf Community in Distance Insights Project

Sports Marketing Surveys Inc. appointed to conduct research to secure feedback
and perspectives this fall

LIBERTY CORNER, N.J. AND ST ANDREWS, SCOTLAND (Aug. 14, 2018) - In an effort to thoroughly inform the Distance Insights project through the lens of the global golf community, the USGA and The R&A will engage with golfers and a wide range of golf’s stakeholders to gather perspectives on the potential causes and impacts of increased distance, beginning in September. 

The Distance Insights project began in May as part of the governing bodies’ overall efforts to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sport. Primary and third-party research is currently being conducted to review historical data and ascertain the past, present and future implications of increased distance on how the game is played. 

In this latest phase of the Distance Insights project, research will be conducted with a series of golfers and stakeholder groups worldwide, banded into 12 general categories. Each group will be asked a series of universal questions to elicit broad perceptions of distance in golf, as well as group-specific questions relating to their area of expertise. The findings of the global perspectives research are expected to be a vital component of the full Distance Insights report, scheduled to be released in 2019.

Sports Marketing Surveys, Inc., an independent and international full-service sports research consultancy, has been selected through a global RFP process to provide multi-layered research and insight expertise for this phase of the project. 

Stakeholder categories are as follows:

• Championship committees

• Course Facility professionals/managers

• Facility maintenance providers, including superintendents/greenkeepers

• Golf administrative organizations

• Golf course architects/construction professionals

• Golf equipment retailers

• Golf equipment manufacturers

• Golf professionals/teachers

• Golfers

• Media

• Non-golf stakeholders

• Tournament golf spectators  

The SMS Inc. research will be conducted throughout the world and in several languages, including Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish, and involving golfers and those working in the industry in both established and emerging golf communities.

The work will principally focus on gaining an understanding from various stakeholder groups into how distance in golf has impacted them over their full golf experience, if at all, and its projected impact into the future. It will include analysis of feedback received to date from the global golf community, following the project’s initiation earlier this year. 

Information on the Distance Insights project, including frequently asked questions, historical data and general terms and conditions for submitting data, can be found at usga.org/distanceinsights or randa.org/distanceinsights. 

More Call On Outright Green Reading Book Ban

Alistair Tait for Golfweek on Laura Davies and Catriona Matthew criticizing the R&A for failing to ban green-reading books outright:

“I think they should ban them completely,” Matthew said. “They’re kind of halfway what’s acceptable, what’s not. If you don’t want people to use them, just ban them outright.”

Matthew, winner of the 2009 Ricoh Women’s British Open, feels the governing bodies have waited too long.

“I kind of think they’ve got a little out of hand,” Matthew said.

Stracka: Putting Stats Haven't Changed So Why Curtail Use Of Books?

Kind of like the folks who say the ball isn't going longer and advertise a new longer flying golf ball, Jim Stracka is treading that fine line in saying a product his Strackaline sells hasn't made a dent in putting stats, yet can't understand why the USGA and R&A want to curtail green reading book usage. 

From Brentley Romine's Golfweek story:

“Putting stats haven’t changed in 25 years,” Stracka told Golfweek via phone on Tuesday. “PGA Tour pros are still making about 50 percent of their putts from inside of 8 feet. … There is no exactness in putting.”

Which begs the question: if they haven't impacted putting numbers, then what is being sold other than a tool that slows down play, appears to cut down on the importance of local knowledge and experience, while enriching a few?

USGA, R&A To Take The Teeth Out Of Green Reading Books Starting In 2019

While the exact wording as to how green reading books will be defanged is set to come in the coming weeks, I report for Golfweek on the USGA and R&A having agreed to new language that will take the teeth out of green reading books starting January 1, 2019.

As noted in the Golfweek exclusive, the restrictions on presentation and information allowed will be made to protect the art of green reading. But there are also slow play considerations as players have begun to study the books on all parts of the course. Hole locations are calculated for players the night prior, which has never exactly exuded a sense that golfers are playing the course as they find it. 

The move is fascinating in the context of other issues facing the governing bodies on distance and de-skilling. By going after a technological advance that they view as de-skilling the game, the stage is set to consider an array of factors that have led to major distance increases. Could this lead to considering a reduction of driver head size or some other restriction to restore skill?

While I've never been offended by players using the books from a play perspective, the books become are offensive when players are not penalized for taking longer than 40 seconds.  

For the sport, defanging green reading books will impact only elite players and college golfers, but will certainly lay the groundwork for future discussions on the de-skilling topic.

R&A Chief Slumbers Says They're In Listening Mode On Distance And Touts "Collaborative" Relationship With Players

Alistair Tait of Golfweek sums up R&A Chief Martin Slumbers' explanation of driver testing conducted at Carnoustie and notes that the random effort looks like it's part of a more proactive approach.

The R&A has had capabilities at previous Opens to test drivers for COR (coefficient of restitution) and CT “characteristic time.” In laymen’s terms, the spring-like effect of driver faces. But the governing body is becoming more proactive this year.

“We’ve always had an equipment test capability down on the range, certainly since I’ve been involved in the Open,” Slumbers said. “It’s been an option for players or the manufacturers to take their equipment in and have it tested. We felt it was an appropriate next step to more actively seek to test players’ drivers straight out of the bag.”

And from the transcript, it's worth noting that Slumbers sees the players as having a positive impression of the R&A. Whether that means in contrast to the USGA or in general, I'm not sure.

It was a request to players, and I think many of you underestimate, we have a very good relationship with our players, and it's a very collaborative relationship, and we had absolutely no problems with the players coming and were interested in what we're doing. A lot of them actually wanted to know how does the test work, and what is it really testing for?

I'm sure they loved giving up their drivers and their caddies to go find out if their club is conforming! 

Hmmmm: R&A Conducts Surprise, Random(?) Driver Test

Thirty players were greeted with letters from the R&A ordering them to offer up their drivers for a COR test. It's not clear if the tests were random or if the players were specially chosen by their manufacturer affiliation or driving distance average.

Welcome to Scotland!

Tim Rosaforte reports for Golf Channel on what appears to be a step-up in the effort to ensure there are conforming drivers in this week's Open Championship. 

Keegan Bradley, Brendan Steele and Brooks Koepka all confirmed that their drivers all passed the COR test (coefficient of restitution, or spring-like effect) administered by the R&A.

This was the first time the R&A took measures that were not part of the distance insight project being done in conjunction with the USGA.

There are two ways of looking at this. 

The sunny side up take would believe this is just part of normal monitoring and amidst some rumblings that this year's distance increase could be fueled by hot drivers.

The cynical take says this is the act of a desperate governing body looking for something to blame this year's increases on, instead of simply anticipating that a combination of technology, athleticism, fitting and a generation of players reared on modern clubs have passed the testing procedures by. AKA, anything not to do something about the Joint Statement of Principles.

The Time Peter Thomson's Son Took The Claret Jug To School For Show And Tell...

The Sydney Morning-Herald's Martin Blake reports on the well-attended memorial for Peter Thomson and the surprise presence of the Claret Jug, brought to Australia by the R&A's Martin Slumbers for the service.

Maybe the best anecdote belonged to Thomson's son Andrew, who brought the Claret Jug to school soon after one of his father's five Open wins. He came home crying from show-and-tell.

"What’s wrong?" Thomson said.

"They rubbished me at school," his son replied. "One boy said his father’s got a dozen of those!"

The moment, Andrew said, tickled his father, who kept touch with his roots as a public course player at Royal Park. "Because as much as professional golf, he loved club golf. He said club golf was the plasma of the game, people trying their luck and coming home with a trophy, just like him."