The USGA Makes It Official...

...a U-groove ban has been proposed.

The key lines from the press release:

The proposal calls for two key additional groove specifications for clubs. One would call for groove edge sharpness to be limited to an effective minimum radius of .010 inches. The second would limit the total cross-sectional area of a groove divided by the groove pitch (width plus separation) to 0.0025 square inches per inch.

The changes in grooves required under the USGA’s proposal would have very little effect on the performance of Surlyn balls favored by most golfers.  More than two-thirds of golf balls sold in the U.S. are Surlyn covered.  The impact of this proposal would be felt primarily by highly skilled players using urethane-covered balls.  

The USGA proposes that these new groove rules become effective for all new clubs covered by this rule change that are manufactured after Jan. 1, 2010. A related Condition of Competition would be added to the USGA Rules of Golf to become effective Jan. 1, 2009. This Condition would allow a Committee to require the use of clubs that conform to the new groove rules for competitive events conducted after Jan. 1, 2009.  Similar to other equipment-related Conditions of Competition, the USGA would recommend that the Condition apply only to competitions involving highly skilled players.

Golf Digest: Groove Announcement Coming Soon

The Brood and Gloom guys at GolfDigest.com report that the USGA's pathetic backdoor attempt at not dealing with the real issue elimination of the U-groove is about to be announced, and someone at the R&A seems to have confirmed so.

Still, several industry sources contacted by Golf World believe the ruling is coming sooner rather than later. The R&A's David Rickman commented recently that a rule proposal was in the offing. "We are in the throes of various meetings and wouldn't want to pre-empt their outcome,” Rickman told The Scotsman newspaper. “But all the signs are that we're very close to going out with 'notice and comment.’ ” When asked about Rickman’s statement, USGA senior technical director Dick Rugge did not dispute that a proposal could happen in the near future, although he declined to offer a specific timetable.

Bowel and Groin also address how this might affect the average golfer. 

The good news for average golfers? You won’t have to buy all new conforming stuff by next year. I’m guessing old stuff will be grandfathered for a pretty significant period of time (minimum five years is my guess). The other good news? It’s either going to make everybody a better golfer (increased pace of play) or half the golfing population quit (plenty of tee times for the rest of us). You start flying greens or having short chip shots run 30 feet by, and you either learn to hit fairways and greens or you throw your clubs in the woods. Whatever you do, though, buy a urethane-covered ball, which is the real hidden gem in the USGA's 180-page report on grooves research.

Okay, they lost me there. Anyone know where we can read up on this urethane stuff in the 180-page report?

Meanwhile, for more on what actually goes on with the grooves and why the USGA sees this is a backdoor approach to the distance issue, check out Mike Stachura's (is he Bulldoze or Gravel?) recent Golf Digest story on grooves.

The Nicklaus Golf Digest Article, Vol. 2

Has there ever been a more conscise summary of what the distance issue is all about?

We have about 16,000 courses in the United States. Almost all of them are obsolete for tournament play. For them to become relevant, we need to roll back the ball about 40 yards. That or rebuild all the fairway bunkers at 300 yards. Which is what we’re doing, and it costs a fortune. Instead of changing equipment, we’re changing golf courses. It’s great for my business. I’m making a living redoing my old courses. But the game should be able to go back to the classic courses just as they are. Why should we be changing all those golf courses? It’s ridiculous.

Trying to build great courses today is more complicated than ever. I’ve decided it’s best to basically design for the enjoyment of the average golfer. That’s what works best for the owners, who are selling memberships and selling their land. I was once accused of designing courses that were too severe. A lot of that was because I was designing a lot of tournament courses.

Creating a true challenge for the best professional players for one week of golf makes it too tough for the average player who is going to play it the rest of the year. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to make the game better for more golfers is to take the driver out of the hands of the elite player. So I tighten up the landing areas for them. It’s kind of a sad compromise, but I think it’s the only solution we’ve got. 

Actually, it's not a sad compromise if we could just make driver absolutely worthless on all championship courses. Then driver sales would plummet and just maybe some of the companies would say wait a second we need to roll back the...ah forget it, what was I thinking?

The Nicklaus Golf Digest Article, Vol. 1

With the Nissan Open and the Golf Industry Show, I'm finally getting around to Jack Nicklaus's essay in the March Golf Digest.

Written with the assistance of Jaime Diaz, the piece is monumental on a number of levels. First, it is by far the most space devoted in a major golf publication to the distance issue and its impact since Nicklaus and George Peper penned similar views in Golf Magazine (circa 1998 I believe).  

What I loved most here is Nicklaus's defense of the claims that his motives are not pure. Actually there's a lot to love here, and I know our Fairhaven readers will especially enjoy this week-long look at Jack's rant.

The best golfers should be better today than the best golfers of yesterday. At the moment, I’m not sure that’s the case. I realize I’m an old fuddy-duddy, and that previous generations always say that their game was better. I guess I’d plead guilty—in part. But here’s the difference. The game in terms of equipment barely changed for 60 years. Then with the equipment revolution that began with metal clubheads in the ’80s and accelerated with dramatic ball technology in the late ’90s, the game changed radically. The best players suddenly found themselves able to hit shots more easily and consistently, as well as pull off shots they never would have tried in the past. It made the game for elite players simpler and easier.

Simpler. Very nice. Attention Ponte Vedra: that means less interesting to watch.

As a result, I don’t care as much for today’s game as I did for the one played for most of my career. I like the old game of moving the ball both ways and using strategy with angles, and hitting all the clubs in the bag.

My greatest concern, because I believe it has the most effect on the most parts of the game, is the golf ball. I’d very much like to see the U.S. Golf Association and the R&A institute at least a 10-percent rollback in the distance the golf ball travels. I know the ruling bodies are looking at limits on equipment, including possibly reducing the size of driver clubheads and eliminating square grooves, but that’s treating an effect more than a cause. The desired results from such moves could be taken care of by a rollback in the ball. In fact, there would be much less need to limit equipment innovations that help amateurs play if the ball were rolled back.

Which once again raises the question, why do Callaway, Taylor Made and Nike oppose a ball rollback?

And just to put the tournament ball talk to rest...

I don’t think a rollback should restrict an elite player’s options in customizing the golf ball he or she would play. It’s OK with me for, say, a player with a low ball flight to get some help by using a model of ball with a dimple pattern that creates a higher launch, or a guy whose angle into the ball generates an excess of spin getting a ball that spins less. In other words, I wouldn’t want to see every player having to use the same exact “tournament ball” picked out of a jar on the first tee. As long as players could keep the ball characteristics that best suit their games, I honestly believe it would take them only a few rounds to completely adjust to a rolled-back ball that doesn’t fly quite as far.

“The longer we hit the ball, the better we are, and we have to get away from that."

Monty, I now apologize for ever making fun of your car washing fetish. Loved your comments from Dubai:

Speaking at GolfEx Dubai, Montgomerie himself raised a few eyebrows by insisting that suppliers make slower balls and modified clubs to boost competitiveness at professional level.

Monty believes that balls should be made with ten to fifteen per cent less velocity and wedges cut back from 60 to 56 degrees to restore the skill factor, while the perennial debate over big-hitting clubs and lengthening courses still needs to be addressed, believes the eight European Tour Order of Merit winner.

“The longer we hit the ball, the better we are, and we have to get away from that,” he said. “The Masters has lost some of its charm. I used to shoot 66 on a round but I can’t see that happening now. St Andrews has six new tees and when changes are being made there, you know we have a problem.”

"The clubs hit the ball too straight"

Peter Yoon explains why no one is using the square drivers.

"The biggest issue for tour pros is that the clubs hit the ball too straight," said Jeff Colton, vice president for research and design at Callaway.

Hey maybe these ugly things will sell despite Tour player use and we can finally bifurcate the game?

Just a thought.

Letter from Saugerties, February 10, 2006

Former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan shares his thoughts on the ramifications and politics behind a possible U-groove rule change.

Having been afraid to do anything to restrain distance, which matters enormously, the USGA is evidently bent on trying to salvage what’s left of its reputation by being  dramatic on a subject that matters very little –  grooves.

A golf equipment manufacturer leaked a copy of a USGA report to Golf Digest magazine.  Mike Stachura, one of the editors, analyzed the report and then interviewed Dick Rugge, the USGA Technical Director.

The report seems to put the club-makers on notice that the USGA will soon change the specifications for grooves on iron clubs. The report says that, contrary to a central tenet of the USGA for the last of 20 years, modern grooves have changed the game dramatically.  The right U grooves, according to the new USGA, make the game much easier for Tour players.

During the 1980s there were great conflicts as to whether U grooves provided significantly more spin that traditional forged V grooves. (Full disclosure: I was then the USGA’s Executive Director).  The answer was presented in two massive volumes titled “USGA Groove Study”.  It said that grooves don’t matter at all on clean hits, which is what Tour players get on par-3 tees and in most of their fairway shots.  U grooves, the study said, sometimes put more spin on a ball played out of light rough but the difference is never more than a couple of feet when it comes to stopping the ball.   Moreover, there are a great many variables including the strains of grasses.

(Please note: when a ball stops 2 feet quicker it does not follow that the ball is 2 feet closer to the hole.  Most shots stop short of the hole anyway so that if a U grooved iron caused a ball to stop quicker the end result could be a 12 foot putt instead of a 10 foot putt.)

Meanwhile, the scoring numbers on the Tour don’t change. The raw average score in 2006 was 71.2, right where it’s been for more than a decade.  Greens hit in regulation numbers also remain the same.  The average is 11.7 per round, same as it was back before the distance explosion starting in 1995.  

The PGA Tour has kept these numbers static by making the courses much harder to play.  Courses are longer, have more rough, fairways are narrower and holes are cut today in parts of greens unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago as suitable locations for holes. Grooves?  Don’t matter.

Harder courses have been forced on the Tour by the USGA’s failure to control distance. Tiger Woods is 30 yards longer than Jack Nicklaus because the USGA blew it first on modern drivers with excessive spring like effect (the whole Tour got 10 yards longer overnight) and then with vastly improved balls.    

I found Dick Rugge’s answers to Stachura’s questions surprisingly hard edged.  I thought of Rugge as a nice man who is trying to hold on to a wickedly difficult job that is much more political in nature than scientific.  Dealing with the USGA Executive Committee, some of whom have a fair understanding of golf and others who have no clue, is no bed of roses.

But in response to Stachura’s probing as to how the USGA could now adopt a position diametrically opposed to what had been its policy Rugge made some smart aleck comment about how lots of people used to think the earth was flat too.   He went on to say that he has 3 people with Ph.Ds doing research, a kind of expertise unavailable to the USGA in the past.

This leads me to Frank Thomas, Rugge’s predecessor as USGA Technical Director and the overseer of its historic groove studies.  Thomas was not exactly working with guys he dragged in off the street.  His assistant had come to the USGA from West Point where he was a professor of ballistics.

Rugge’s resume includes a stint at Taylor Made where he was the enabler of bubble shafts. Remember those?  The marketing was effective.

Poor Frank Thomas had to put up with a scientific ignoramus, myself, demanding to know how we could allow bubbles in shafts that would change the game. Thomas laughed, saying that bubbles in shafts had nothing to do with performance and would soon go away, like so many hyped equipment products.

When I had a long chat with Rugge I tried to push a button by asking why I should take him seriously as the USGA’s wizard on golf equipment given his history of espousing bubbles in shafts. His face reddened.  

Rugge also told Mike Stachura something he had also told me – that he was tremendously influenced by Arnold Palmer who said to him that the USGA gave the game away by allowing U grooves.    

Arnold Palmer on golf equipment?  Whatever happened to all those Arnold Palmer equipment companies? But the Palmer magic endures.  If, perchance, Arnold announced that the world is flat, both Rugge and USGA President Walter Driver would be very careful where they stepped.

Frank Thomas now has a gig with Golf Digest where he is buried in the back of the book (Full disclosure: I used to write for the magazine). Not long ago I laughed aloud when I read some stuff of his in answer to ostensible reader questions about groove performance.  

He knows what the USGA is up to, considers it nonsense, and was trying to make the point softly. I suspect that when Frank left the USGA in a state of great animosity he signed a piece of paper saying that if he directly speaks ill of the USGA in public he endangers some of his tin parachute money.  These things happen.

As I’ve said, Dick Rugge is a pleasant man with political skills. If he were to run for public office, say for a place on a town council, with Frank Thomas as his opponent, Dick would come in with an overwhelming majority. On the other hand, I would rather have Frank look under the hood of my stalled car.

For the world of golf to get a feeling for what grooves do and don’t do, I offer a simple solution. The USGA should release Frank Thomas from whatever hold it has on him.   There should be a public debate on The Golf Channel, one hour, no commercials, with only Rugge and Thomas on stage.

We need a moderator. Tim Russert probably doesn’t play golf.  Tom Friedman, the esteemed columnist of the New York Times, a golf whacko who as a kid caddied for Chi Chi Rodriguez in a US Open, would be excellent.  But Tom might consider this too trivial. 

I know.  We get The Hon. Dan Quayle, former vice president of these United States.   He may not be Jack Kennedy, but he can break 80.

Frank Hannigan
Saugerties, New York
February 12, 2006

To read other Hannigan letters, here is his commentary on the recent USGA-AmEx deal where he revealed that the USGA lost $7 million this year. He also shared his thoughts on the USGA's private jet package, and provided this take on USGA President Walter Driver's revealing views on distance.

Groove Study Done, Ball Study...

...hopefully forgotten about?

Mike Stachura reports that the USGA has issued a final report similar to their preliminary report from August, but still no mention of the ball study from 2002. Here's what Stachura says:

The final report does not include any proposal for a rule change, but it does seem to indicate a fundamental change from the USGA's position on grooves 20 years ago. At that time (during the so-called "square grooves" debate), Stuart Bloch, then chairman of the USGA's Implements and Ball Committee, actually termed any differences between U-grooves and V-grooves "inconsequential."

This next part comes after Dick Rugge is quoted as saying that the USGA has better testing procedures...

Rugge did not provide any specific timetable for a rule-change proposal or even suggest that there would be a change at all. But he did suggest that a meeting with Arnold Palmer several years ago prompted him and his staff to research the issue further.

"When Arnold Palmer came to our building and shook his finger at me and said, 'Allowing U grooves was the biggest mistake we ever made,' it did make me want to take a look at that issue."

Arnold, could you go back and shake your finger at Dick and tell him your thoughts on the golf ball going too far?

According to a USGA study of amateur players at the Walt Disney World Palm and Eagle Pines golf courses, only 13.1 percent hit the green from shots out of the rough from 100 to 200 yards. The PGA Tour average for similar shots is 49 percent. Also, because the urethane-covered ball used by tour players spins much more out of the rough than the typical ionomer-covered ball (like those with Surlyn covers) preferred by most average golfers (more than two-thirds, based on a study of recent Golf Datatech industry sales figures), average golfers don't often use the equipment that can generate the most spin.

"It's a way of addressing the problem where the problem shows up and not affecting anybody else," says Rugge.

Translation: this way we can keep harvesting rough and offering 22 yard landing areas to discourage distance for tournament play while ignoring the issue we don't really want to deal with because it would require us to admit we botched this one big time!

“These partnerships will help bring to life the amazing feats that occur each week on the LPGA Tour, such as crushing 275 yard drives..."

Thanks to reader Tom for this release. As always, your vote on the most ridiculous of the requisite lame quotes is welcomed:

LPGA announces technology enhancements for telecasts SkyCaddie to provide real-time GPS information

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla., Jan. 26, 2007- The Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) and the Golf Channel have each partnered with SkyGolf, makers of the SkyCaddie® GPS rangefinder, to provide enhanced, real-time information to viewers during live LPGA tournament broadcasts.  Analysts will be utilizing SkyCaddie® rangefinders to provide real-time information to viewers of LPGA telecasts on ESPN2 and the Golf Channel, beginning with the Golf Channel's broadcast of the SBS Open at Turtle Bay, Feb. 15-17.

Viewers will be given comprehensive information, including players’ driving distances and positioning, such as distances needed to clear or lay up in front of fairway hazards.  The inclusion of this cutting-edge technology and production enhancement represents the first time advanced GPS technology will play such an integral role during LPGA golf broadcasts.  The SkyCaddie® rangefinders use the same global positioning system used by the U.S. military, but in a highly portable handheld device about the size of a cell phone that can compute distances to any point on a golf course.

“We are very excited to be working with the LPGA and the Golf Channel to provide a unique perspective to viewers that will help showcase the remarkable talents of these highly skilled professional athletes,” said SkyGolf CEO Richard Edmonson.  “These partnerships will help bring to life the amazing feats that occur each week on the LPGA Tour, such as crushing 275 yard drives and pinpoint approach shots.”

Even Bivens in her prime can't top that...crushing 275 yard drives?

“Our research has shown that our viewers are looking for more statistics and information about the great play on the LPGA Tour,” said LPGA Commissioner Carolyn F. Bivens.  “We are pleased to team with SkyCaddie to bring enhanced information to our tournament broadcasts.  SkyCaddie’s portability and easy-to-use technology will make broadcast implementation seamless, allowing our broadcast partners to clearly illustrate why LPGA players are some of the best athletes in the world.”

MBA Points for use of portability, seamless and partners, but best athletes in the world? Boring...

“The LPGA is extremely popular right now, featuring gifted players and intense competition each week,” said the Golf Channel’s Executive Vice President of Advertising Sales and New Media Gene Pizzolato.  “We’re proud to be expanding our production capabilities of LPGA telecasts by incorporating the proven performance of the SkyCaddie into our broadcasts to bring exciting real-time information to our viewers like never before.”

I wonder if they'll plug the SkyCaddie numbers into WinZone in order to make it, well, work? 

"Rolling the ball back isn't going to change that; all that will do is save land"

Scotland on Sunday's John Huggan lets Hank Haney ramble on about how the game has never been tougher, and therefore, a little ball rollback that only impacts the tour pro would be a disaster.

"The biggest factor, however, is that golf courses today are generally so much more difficult than they used to be. What makes a course difficult - and you tend to see this whenever a big event is being played and the greenkeeper has prepared the place specially - is fast greens. Not only are fast greens more difficult to putt on and chip to, you have to hit your drives into the right spots if you are to have any chance of getting your approach shots close to the hole. When the ball runs after it lands, the game is always harder."

Okay, fine.
 

Shoulda stopped him there Huggy!

"It is no exaggeration to say that everything is more difficult these days. You have to be more precise in every aspect of the game. Look at it this way: I hear all kinds of talk these days about how modern equipment has made golf easier - at least at the highest level - but what has been done to make the parts of the game that amateurs find hardest any easier? Nothing. In fact, the opposite is true.

Uh, what do those things have to do with one another? 

"So, I just don't see where the game has gotten easier for the typical amateur. I think it is harder than it has ever been. And will continue to get harder, as long as courses get longer in response to the top 1 % of players. I have to say that makes no sense to me. Why do clubs worry about what the pros do?"

But hey, if we bring the pros back a little, won't the divide you speak of be fixed? Apparently not...

"Okay, I can see how the narrower fairways have reduced the incentive for players to shape shots," he concedes. "In the US Open at Winged Foot last year, the correct way to play the course was just to hit to the corner of the dogleg on every hole.

"But I'm not sure what people mean when they say that shot-making has been lost to the game.

Whoa there. He says there's no incentive to shape shots, but he doesn't see a disapperance of shotmaking?

The only thing that has really changed on tour is the clubs that are being hit to the greens. Players are a lot longer off the tee than they used to be. Where Ben Hogan was hitting a 2-iron, most guys are now hitting 7-irons. If that makes the game boring, then I would have to agree.

"But the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. If you haul the ball back 40 yards, you make the game so much worse it is incredible.

"Already we have a certain amount of players who the game has passed by, and that number would increase if the ball didn't go as far as it does now.

And we all know how hard it is to move tee markers UP.

"Golf, after all these years, has finally gotten like other sports. It hasn't changed because of the equipment or the ball: it has changed because better athletes are now playing the game.

Ahhh...it's been a while since anyone has mentioned the better athletes concept. Not since...oh right, all of that talk about steroid testing. 

"Every sport is the same. If you are small, you better be quick. If you are big and slow, there is a spot for you. If you are big and fast, you are a superstar. And golf has finally reached that point.

"So it isn't the ball. The problem is that there is such a big gap between those who can really 'send' their drives out there and those who can't. All of which takes the little guy out of the game. And that is the way it is in every sport."

So don't address the issue at the professional level because the amateur isn't reaping the benefits of the equipment like the pro. Brilliant.

This is an interesting point at least...

Indeed, Haney paints a pretty bleak picture of the future for a game that has, until now, not simply been a size and distance contest. "The new generation of golfers hit the ball so far, you can't roll the ball back," he maintains. "If that happened, Tiger's edge is only going to get bigger. The problem with distance is that height comes with it."

And my favorite...

"Rolling the ball back isn't going to change that; all that will do is save land, and make the game worse by widening the gap between long and short.

Save land? Exactly, why would you want to that. It's only land. Nike doesn't have to pay for it! 

The long hitters won't mind if the ball is rolled back. And they would love to see the grooves on wedges altered. That's all you need to know."

Oh yeah, end of debate!

"I'm just trying to hit high bombs."

One other item of interest from Mickelson's press conference was this comment about the new square headed driver...

Q: Could you talk to us about what you think the reception of that will be on the PGA TOUR and what you think about it?

Phil Mickelson: Well, I think that the FTI, the square-headed driver, is not just an evolutionary driver. I think it's more of a revolutionary driver. Because it's such a drastic change, because the moment of inertia is so high, because the ball goes so straight it doesn't want to curve, I think it's actually going to take a little bit more time on the PGA TOUR.

There will be guys that love it. Guys that don't like to work shots and want to aim it down the middle of the fairway and rip it, this will be perfect for them because it goes so straight but some guys like to hit little draws, hit a fade, hit high shots, low shots; and the design from my manufacturer, the FT5 is a much better fit to hit those variety of shots.

But if I just wanted to hit it straight, I'll go to the FTI which is why I'm leaning towards that driver for Augusta when I tried to hit it a lot longer. I'm not really trying to manoeuvre it or curve it; I'm just trying to hit high bombs.

Thank God Hootie has retired. Otherwise they'd probably be out planting more tacky pines today at Augusta. 

A Solution To The Groove Problem

After watching tee shots to Waialae's ridiculously narrow par-5 18th fairway (and not seeing too many drives finishing in it) I was thinking that maybe it was time for the club to simply abandon the 22 yards of width it already has, and just go with an all rough landing area.

After all, look at the scoring through three rounds (PGATour.com did not add the fourth for some reason):

Stroke Avg:      4.353
Hole Rank:     18th
Avg. Drive:     309.5
Longest Drive:     381 yards (Holmes)

So the 22 yards did not discourage birdies and eagles, nor did it prevent players from hitting long tee shots. And last I heard, preventing long drives and correspondoning low scores was the goal of such a narrow fairway.

But then I got to thinking about Peter Dawson's comments on grooves, rough and scoring, and by golly, I think we have a solution to all of this madness.

Dawson said, "We now see balls spinning more from 2in or 3in rough than they do when hit from the fairway. That cannot go on."

He's right, we can't allow this to keep happening.

So stop narrowing fairways if the grooves are allowing players to spin the ball more than they would from the fairway.

WIDENING fairways will solve this U-grooves from the rough problem!

A return to sane widths will set a wonderful example for the game and allow players to strategically pick the sides of fairways again. True precision via intelligent placement of shots will again be rewarded when all of those balls previous controlled from 2-3 inch rough will be coming from fairway lies!

Spin From Dawson

On the post of John Huggan's annual chat with R&A secretary Peter Dawson, reader John G posted something that I think needs further consideration since I glossed over it in the inital posting:

"We now see balls spinning more from 2in or 3in rough than they do when hit from the fairway."

I'm sorry, this quote just doesn't pass the smell test. I can't believe Huggan didn't pounce on this. Has anyone seen any research to confirm this kind of statement?

I would believe that spin rates from 2-3" rough could be similar, but not quite as good as from a normal fairway lie.

But BETTER spin rates from rough than from a nice tightly mown fairway?? C'mon. I'm not THAT gullible.

These guys are desperate to say anything to distract from the real issues.

So do you think the USGA/R&A will actually be able to prove that this has been the case (better spin rates from rough than fairway), and if so, does anyone buy it? 

Huggan On Uihlein: "He has to go."

Remember Wally, I just copy and paste this stuff. In fact, reader David sent this to me, so I didn't find it, didn't write it, didn't think of it. That said, John Huggan has you on his Santa wish list...

2 A NEW LEADER AT TITLEIST: Sadly, the man in charge of the world's biggest golf equipment company is a world-renowned point-misser.

In a position to do the world of golf a favour and agree to withdraw his tacit threat to sue if the game's hard-pressed administrators should make rules that will shorten the vast distances the very best players can propel shots, Wally Uihlein chooses instead to follow a policy that can only damage the sport and, by extension, his own company, in the long term.

Look at some of the nonsense that we already have to put up with: courses covered in long grass and stretched to something like 7,500 yards so as to all but eliminate from contention anyone not physically big enough to hit drives over 300 yards on a consistent basis - goodbye Justin Leonard and Corey Pavin and Andrew Coltart.

All of which is largely down to Uihlein's intransigence.

He has to go.

Way harsh Huggy!

I also liked his plea for more Geoff Ogilvy's and fewer carts in the U.S., but this was especially good:

7 A DROUGHT IN AMERICA: Having not long returned from a visit to Australia, where water is currently in very short supply, Santa would like to see those conditions replicated in the US.

Having sampled fast-running fairways and greens that only enhanced the strategic qualities of the likes of Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and the stunning Barnbougle Dunes, some of the same would do nothing but good in the land of 'hit and stick'.

Instead of wedging on to pudding-like greens from basically anywhere, Uncle Sam's nieces and nephews would suddenly be forced to consider where best to place their drives. Angles would have to be created in order that approach shots could be landed short and run up to the flag.

Thinking on the golf course? What a concept, eh?

Coming In All Shapes And Sizes

Jim Achenbach reports more than you ever wanted to know about all of the new loud, ugly and expensive drivers coming to golf shop near you.