Week In Review, July 1-8: This and That

A little bit of everything this week as the Women's Open wrapped up Monday, the Senior Open is being played at wonderful Prairie Dunes and the British Open looms.

Playing out somewhat under the radar is the PGA Tour's FedEx Cup announcement, which surprisingly has been met with only a few negative reviews. Considering that it has been billed as an exciting new concept, I'm surprised we haven't seen more stories questioning the many bizarre aspects of the Tour's new "playoffs." (Then again, few questioned the sanity of rewarding a Commissioner with a $27 million contract for signing a 15-year deal with The Golf Channel, so why should we expect anything else!)

Thankfully, you all had plenty to say about the Tour' s announcement this week.

JPB: "The Tour appears to be making a lot of decisions that will benefit top players, top purses, and top sponsors at the expense of everybody else. There is a place to treat stars better. There is a place for some events to be bigger and better than others. However, to throw away tournaments, fans, and entire markets for the alleged improvements is risky. And then to get meaningless MBA speak about having too much water in the glass... Perhaps the better water analogy is throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Andreas Håkansson: "Personally, living in Sweden and watching PGA Tour telecasts past bedtime, I do not think that the demise of these tournaments is a bad thing. Uninteresting courses and unattractive fields leave them inferior to most European Tour stops during summer and fall. For me as a European, American golf ends, and has always ended, after the NEC (the old World Series). I reckon that Finchem feels the same way."

Regarding the shabby treatment of Washington D.C., reader TC writes: "Blame money hungry Commissioner Tim Finchem for this travesty. And for handling the situation like a fourth grader. He waited unitl it was too late for Booz Allen to react before telling them he had moved their event to the worst possible weekend on the tour. Then he refused to take phone calls from the Washington press yesterday."

With Annika and Pat Hurst deciding the U.S. Women's Open on Monday, the subject of 18-hole playoffs came up.

Smolmania: "When I start playing 3 or 4 hole rounds of golf, or 3 or 4 hole matches, I will agree that 3 or 4 hole playoffs are the way to go. Why does everything in life have to be based upon expedience? Golf is one game that isn't, at least it shouldn't. Besides, the USGA has much more important things to be worrying about than how many extra holes to play. It used to be a big deal when the guys on the PGA Tour could "hit the barn" at the back of the range at Cog Hill. . . yesterday 80% of the guys I saw were doing it. Fix the ball, then you can worry about the silly little details like how long the playoffs should be in the ultimate championship."

AP Maran on criticism of 18-hole playoffs: "It's the time we live in that is the problem, better be quick than dead, next town next competition, never rest, up up go go. I can see the logistical problems with burning a day, tents to move, cargos to ship. But as golf continue to be the semislow game in sports, let us hail the honour to be slow and enjoy the extra round of playoff, but at the same time don't be silly as in cricket and take tea for two hours before next batting, 18 holes is perfect."

NRH: "The USGA has it right on this one. Monday might be inconvenient for some, but not to those who are playing. There's something to be said for the mental endurance of an additional 18 and sleeping on it. Like the rough and winning scores over par, it is once a year. Deal with it Doug. Besides, there's no way the USGA would leave enough light to get in 3 or 4 holes on Sunday."

Kevin: "What does an 18 hole playoff offer that a 4 or 5 hole playoff doesn't? The ability to come back after one or two bad holes? That's a weak reason when you are talking about the a championship of golf...the stakes should be high for each hole in the playoff, whether it is sudden death or a subset of holes.

Scotty: "I've been to all four major championships at least once and attended every Masters and U.S. Open since 1997, and the USGA puts on the worst show annually -- by far. It's tedious. Every bit of it. And on the off chance that one of its events happens to get exciting enough to reach playoff potential, the USGA goes ahead and makes the whole thing more tedious by dragging it out another day. I'm all for tradition, and if that's your reasoning for sticking with 18 holes, fine. But if you can honestly tell me that any part of Sunday's final round at Winged Foot, for instance, was remotely close to the drama that unfolded in the last four holes, you're making about as much sense as the people defending oil company profits."

Gus: "They might not have needed a playoff if it were possible in a USGA set up to make a birdie. The only movement in these things is backwards to the field. The concept of an extra 18 would be fine if we were talking about exciting/ interesting golf- but we're not. The prospect of extending everyone's misery for another day is too much too bear. Somebody pull the plug! Please!

I brought up the subject of Phil Mickelson's scouting of courses and knowing what he'll hit in advance. Personally, I think it says something very bad about modern day course setup and architecture that spontaneity has been stripped from the tournament equation. But as expected, a Phil debate broke out! That's okay, the comments were still interesting.

JPB: "Golf should be something more vague than a game broken down by the stats wizards and game theory geniuses. I hope so, since I am neither of those, my brain can barely handle adding the score up."

Charlie Bell: I agree that the USGA shouldn't determine or announce tee/pin positions in advance. For me it's not a matter of challenging the players to think "on the fly" so much as ensuring that they're forced to think a lot, period. Because a course changes daily with wind, turf, and green conditions, there's no sense in setting it up until the last possible moment. The challenge shouldn't lie in the difficulty of the shots per se but rather in the variety of shots required from hole to hole and round to round, and you can't maximize this until you know the day's conditions.

On the latest and most misleading Golf Digest Bomb and Gouge blog entry yet, JM writes:  Of course, the First Corollary to this observation is Paul Fussell's Law of the Ball (as outlined in his book, Class): the smaller the ball, the higher the class. Here's a catchy new title for their blog, then: Spares and Strikes Forever."

NRH used the topic to write, "Billy Payne, take the first step and make your own Masters ball. Since Augusta always does things the classy way, only use your logo on them and do not reveal the manufacturer. Let each player choose the compression (is there even a choice anymore?), give them 4 dozen in advance of the tournament week so they can get used to them and another 4 dozen when they arrive with their initials embossed and send them to the tee."

Week In Review, June 25-July1: Bad News Tour

What should have been a slow week turned into a series of bad news stories on the PGA Tour centering around the demise of the Washington stop and the Western Open name change.

Regarding Ed Sherman's latest commentary on the Western's demise, reader JPB said: "Glad to see the Evans Scholars will get more money. Aside from that it is bad that the name is gone. The Western was essentially a major for crying out loud. I know it lost that status long ago, but it is sad to see the name changed to the BMW. I like free trade and globalization and stuff, but can anybody tell whether the Deutsche Bank, BMW, Johnny Walker, SBS, RBS or FBR are on the European Tour, PGA Tour, or senior tour anymore? Even BMW Western would be better at this point."

Following Jeff Rude's story on the Tour's lousy treatment of the Western, JohnV wrote: "I went to bmwusa.com and told them I think they have made a terrible decision in renaming the event. As for its leaving Chicago, the Western Open used to move around a lot so I have less problem with that.

Jimmy countered: "If Finchem and his cronies want to move an event around each year why not pick Quad Cities or Milwaukee, venues with less generated revenues than the Western Open held in Chicago and less support. Taking the second oldest golfing event in the country, run by the Western Golf Ass. and requiring a name change is astonishing. Whatever this mad man is up to one thing is quite evident, he cares nothing about tradition, values, history, integrity."

We kicked the week off with Geoff Ogilvy's comment that "if they [the governing bodies] don't take care of the game, i'm sure there is someone out there who wants to make money off the game that will."

Matt responded: "the USGA has made a ton of money off the game, and not through member dues. Their TV deal with NBC was a huge whopper that made them beyond flush with cash. How they should have used the money: staying one step ahead of the manufacturers and being proactive when it came to controlling the distance the golf ball traveled. The big TV deal was in 1995, about the same time that the golf ball started on the distance rise that has spiraled out of control in recent years. Instead they have spent the money on jet travel for executives and for hiring Rees Jones and other folks to trick up classic sites, and also some turfgrass research I guess. I'm not sure they can be trusted to 'ultimately make the correct decisions.' The game has been injured enough through the wrong ones the USGA has made."

Regarding the wonderful second hole at Newport, Charlie wrote: "This morning we managed to see only about nine holes, but I honestly thought to myself as I beheld (that's the word) the super-short 2nd, 'Man, this is a hole the rest of the world should see.' It's almost like you could play it forever and never really figure it out. It's just too easy-looking and yet... It'll require two quite good shots and two good putts to get your par - yet birdie and bogey seem equally likely for 9 out of 10 golfers. Tantalizing..."

Midweek brought the PGA Tour's announcement on next year's FedEx Cup points playoffs, which does not appear to be the answer to the Tour's spiraling ratings.

Rick Adams: "Can't you hear the watercooler talk on Monday? 'Did you see that Phil is one thousand six hundred eighty-six points ahead of Ogilvy now?'"

And on a later post, Kevin: "If they were REALLY trying to emulate Nascar then a player should get points for the 3rd round lead..."

After the Commissioner's tortured teleconference talk, MacDuff wrote, "the more I think about it I realize a points race works for a team sport, where a team has a fan base (sorry) and their ups and downs are shared by their supporters. Apply this to sports of individuals, like golf or tennis, and that magic evaporates...unless you're Tiger or Phil."

cmoore said: "That "playoff" system, as explained by Finchem, comes off as an ill-conceived load of dung. "On one hand, more or less" a player has a "home-field advantage? What? On the system not eliminating those who have no chance to win: "What that's going to create, obviously, is a player who no longer has a mathematical chance to win might play lights-out for two weeks and move well up into the points list from a distribution standpoint." Distribution standpoint? What? I fear this system may lose the 112 million fans the tour currently has."

Jay wrote: "When I was in the Air Force, they sent all the E-5s and above to a one day communication course. One of the lessons I remember is to simplify one’s message. Cut out the BS. Finchem could sure use that course...

Dave Marrandette agreed: "having been trained in the military as a BS interpreter, I can perhaps enlighted everyone about Mr. Finchem's ramblings. You see, he has followed the NASCAR and LPGA pattern. Not wanting to be outdone by a bunch of rednecks and women, he put his debate packground to the test and BS'd FedEx out of millions of dollars."

And Chuck had this to say, which I think I'll raise in a post next week: "To me, allowing 144 players in the playoff is an admission that there will not be a 'fall finish' or a 'quest for the card', as was originally planned. Guess they can't get any sponsors..."

Scott wondered: "It seems that if you win the first of the four tournaments, then you could take the next one off to rest. I don't understand all of this. What is the point? How is this going to make these four tournaments more exciting than NFL or college football?"

On overall impressions of Finchem's announcment, Glyn wrote: "If there isn't a chance of elimination then it's not a playoff, plain and simple. Thus the "excitement" is the same as any other event, week to week."

And Kevin: "Well, I will say that Finchem tried his best to make lemonade when faced with a bunch of lemons. He had Tiger, among others, complaining about the length of the season and a TV contract to negotiate. And like a good magician he pulled a rabbit out of his hat. And he got FedEx to buy in. Will I watch ? Yeah, probably. Will I care who wins the FedEx cup? I doubt it. Will Tiger now get late fall off, excuse free? Absolutely. How will the PGA Tour and FedEx fare at the end of it all? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn..."

Bruce Selcraig's story on The K Club prompted this from Jonathan Cummings: "I played K-Club a few weeks after it opened (10 years ago??). I just looked up my notes for that round...."reminds me of a 100 other Florida golf courses...."

Jason Sobel interviewed Bubba Watson, causing Smolmania to comment: Seems as if Mr. Watson fits right in to the Commish's NASCAR revisions to the sport doesn't it? See ball, hit ball far. . . the sport of Hogan and Nelson? Yes, Bubba, there will always be big hitters. But when the manufacturers take over the game by allowing technology to permit the big hitters to take an unfair advantage of the guys who can actually play the game, the game loses relevance to the folks who pay the bills. . . the fans.

The USGA gave a press conference at Newport, and David Fay's comments on Winged Foot elicited some interesting replies.

Chuck: "'...a great old golf course can still be a great championship site for contemporary golf...' if, in five years of preparatory work, you build six or more new tees, stretch the distances by 400 yards, create single-file fairways and have a phenomenal wet spring for growing steel-wool tiered that requires a staff of 200 marshalls to avoid an epidemic of lost balls. Why not give it a try with your own "great old golf course"?"

Hank: "D. Fay must think us fools to believe this garbage that he continually puts out there, and all the lap dogs in the press(?) keep on lapping it up! I think it is fair to say that the players' remarks were more criticism than just "comments". Those greens were terrible and adversely impacted the tournament. I'd be curious as what WFGC members think?"

Regarding the USGA's Marty Parkes and his comment that the USGA is not aware of what the Ohio Golf Association is up to with their competition ball event this August, Barry wrote:  "Why should the OGA consult the USGA, an organization that seems to be paralyzed by this debate? For heaven's sake, the OGA's experiment may fail miserably - but at least they are trying something here, in reality, in this space time continuum...You can't whine about not being part of a conversation if you don't have anything to say. "We're looking at the issue" doesn't cut it anymore.

Mike B.: "Of course the USGA has no idea what is going on, they don't know where Ohio is ... or how to pick up the phone and call the OGA ...And the OGA is doing this, running the tournament, selecting the ball and collecting technical data without the warchest the USGA has..."

On Lorne Rubenstein's story about Pate and Kite's different views on equipment, AP Maran wondered after watching some World Cup ball debate, "Every championship releases a new ball model, fit to the ideas of the individual championship. By that they can promote spin against length this year, to promote more goals. Goal keepers have difficulty yo grip them with that spin and less length to promote more passes in the midfield.The discussions have been wild about the new ball but everyone accepts the need for change! Why not have specific tournament golf balls, Titleist and the rest have the specifications in good time and also creates a collectible(!?) at the same time, think about playing your home course with the "Open Championship 2006 ball" and see how you end up; if the USGA saw the moneyside in this maybe they would change...

Gene Yasuda reported on Carolyn Bivens's latest run-in, this time with the tournament owners.

Jim Jax wrote: "Glad to see the Tourney Owners taking on the dictatorial Bivens. It's hardly a golf tour partnership with her "my way or the highway" management style. She is absolutely the wrong person for the job with her confrontational approach to loyal in-house staff and the TOA. It will "Bye, bye Bivens" soon I think."

Week(s) In Review, June 10-24: Winged Foot

Posting will be light through early Wednesday, but I will include a few photos of U.S. Women's Open site Newport and some other tidbits.

In the mean time, there is plenty to pore over from the last two weeks. It's fascinating how much occurred with both the LPGA, U.S. Open and technology issues.

Just some of the highlights (and you can always access Journal Topics on the left for individual issues or the 2006 U.S. Open posts):

The Wall Street Journal reported on the USGA's move toward square grooves regulation, prompting reader Scott S to write: "I'm a little bit frightened here, not just because they are throwing up a smoke screen, but because this move towards arguing about grooves is exactly what manufacturers would want. A ball rollback means nothing for them. People buy new balls all the time, and so would not equate to any increase in sales. However, with equipment, which has a longer lifespan in most golfers' bags, any changes would mean new purchase that might have been deferred for an unspecified period. Changes in grooves means everyone having to go out and buy new iron sets and wedges, a major purchase, where changes in the ball means simply buying a new dozen at the start of the year, like always."

Golf World's Ron Sirak took a closer look at the reign of Carolyn Bivens, with complaints and many others defending the new Commissioner.

That prompted Smolmania to remark: "Where are these great skills that these people keep talking about? What evidence have we seen of them since the branding commissioner took over? The LPGA tour has an opportunity to make huge inroads on the golf market. The Champions/Senior tour loses momentum with every passing day. Jack doesn't play, the King can't, and they won't let Chi Chi. Yes, Jay Haas and Loren Roberts are fabulous players, but people won't come out to see them simply because of who they are."

Bivens also gave an interview in Rochester to share more of her marketing wisdom.

NRH comments: "Hospitality ownership. If I was a marketing VP for product beyond feminine hygiene, cosmetics or groceries and the event was not in the same market as headquarters, I would certainly choose to spend $200k on a PGA Tour tent than $50k for the LPGA. Scores on cell phones?? How original...a service that has been around since 1999. If she wants highlights, maybe she should look at the numbers for ESPN Mobile. Despite a mid 10 figure ad campaign and debut during the Super Bowl, they have sold under 10,000 units to date despite a 50% price reduction. I am sure all of the companies buying airtime on LPGA telecasts are thrilled to hear Bivens touting TiVo."

The USGA's officers held their annual pre-U.S. Open press conference and the questions were awful.

Reader Gregg: Such hardball questions. You would think someone would ask a real question. They should have used your list and at least asked Walter what transportation he used to get to New York."

My senior USGA staff sources say that Mr. Driver flew commercial to Winged Foot. Poor lad!

During Open week, we learned that 2007 U.S. Open host Oakmont wants to furrow their bunkers.

Farouck: "For years they pushed perfectly predictable bunkers. Easily maintainable surrounds with lush green grass for perfect mowing patterns. But we are going to restore the bunkers to the original look while reducing labor. What a fabulous idea! Lets spend $700,000 plus a special irrigation system to keep the grass and sand perfect. The bunkers are no longer hazards we need to make them unpredictable again. What about spending more man hours with special rakes to create an unpredictable predictable sand. Great idea!"

And Gus: "I like the process of de-evolution on the bunkers back toward being hazards, but I'm not sure another specialized maintenance routine is the right approach."

D. Edgard:  Furrowing bunkers in Oakmont 2007 would be a marvellous step towards the origins of the game, would be marvellous to watch and would be much better golf. It´s great only to wonder about!!!

Tom Spousta (I think) in the USA Today had an excellent story on the lost art of shotmaking, with plenty of great quotes from Lee Trevino.  JPB says, "I can't iamgine how a player like trevino feels. He had total control of the golf ball. But now it is hit away, just don't pull it or block it."

And MacDuff: "Likewise craftsmanship - fewer people make things nowadays, we go out and buy them at X-Marts, and usually of an inferior quality. Knowledge of natural bush medicine, which stood us in good stead for thousands of years, is being lost to feed the coffers of large pharmaceutical companies. Sounds similar to golf?"

John Huggan filed a story of Geoff Ogilvy's thoughts on the state of the game as it related to Winged Foot's setup before the Australian's win Sunday. Doug wrote: I can see the USGA officials doing a Sgt. Shultz during this interview: "I see nothing, I hear nothing..."

Huggan also wrote a more exhaustive piece on Golfobserver.com.

I tried a live telecast blog Saturday and Sunday and while I'm not entirely happy with it, it did keep me awake during Saturday's telecast. Even more rewarding was knowledge that I was helping a few folks Down Under who were unable to watch due to a lack of coverage. Your thoughts on this experiment? The sequencing is an issue, I know.

On Brian Hewitt's report that the USGA wants the first green at Winged Foot renovated if it is to hold another Open, reader Jack Vaughn defended the idea of rebuilding a green for four days of play every 20 years or so: "Part of the East Course renovation includes rebuilding several greens because their contours simply do not work when paired with modern speeds. Has it occurred to any of you that the WF members may WANT to redo #1-West or is everything the 'fault' of the evil USGA? If the result of hosting USGA events is so horrible why do these clubs continue to invite the USGA back?"

Reader Brad wrote, "If the USGA hasn't figured out poa annua yet, which is a weed, why consider architectural changes? The USGA keeps putting the cart in front of the horses. Clearly they don't know how to regulate equipment, or run a Championship."

The USGA's Dick Rugge admitted that the organization may have let technology get too far out of hand, which I believe is the first such acknowledgment.

He then went on to lay the groundwork for doing something about grooves!

Reader Jimmy responded: "This US Open reminds me of the Griswald's on vacation. Instead of getting lost in St. Louis, making some wickedly disastrous decisions on direction, proclaiming the 8 myths of distance, stating their position with 'principles' in the balance, continuing on without a road map, looking at each other gleefully after departing the company's net jet on a fact finding mission, why don't they just pull over and get some well founded grasp on reality."

A post allowed you to send your congratulations to all around good guy U.S. Open winner and occasional reader of this site, Geoff Ogilvy, and you can still post something if you'd like.

During Open week, there were spirited discussions on the proximity of the corporate tent to No. 18, debate over Phil's decision making and even one on his weight.

The Winged Foot setup left Peter Kostis feeling disgusted about the bastardizing of classic courses, to which Glyn wrote: Peter, let's agree; wasp-waisted fairways, haystack rough and and parquet-floor greens are bad tricks to be played on classic golf courses. (Not sure about how tricked the Winged Foot greens were in any event, but...)
So what say you about that other trick to be played on one great course after another -- moving tee boxes and fairway bunkers, for no other reason (NO OTHER REASON) than to keep up with the next Pro V x-cess...?"

Tim Finchem weighed in on the bunker furrowing at Muirfield Village, requiring a translation from Glyn: "Does he ever give a straight answer? Let me see if I can translate....'Bottom line is, I think it was a reasonable, healthy exercise that stimulates discussion and focus on different parts of setup philosophy that can contribute to challenges that are good for the competition and also interesting to the spectators.'..translates to..'The players hated it so we are dropping that idea and searching for another idea to counter the rise of technology without offending either the players or the equipment makers.'"
 
And another from Van: "How 'bout, 'Furrowed bunkers has always been a stupid idea, but we're looking at its feasibility, anyway.'"

But I still say the best story of the last two weeks, maybe the year, came from Peoria where the a qualifying for a boys junior event was marred by an over-the-top setup designed to offset the distances the 11 and 12 year olds were hitting it!

Week in Review, June 4-10: Still Furrowing

As the Open at Winged Foot looms, check out the Winged Foot journal section if you want to check out some of the posts that preview key holes. And to get in the mood, there were several articles worth reading from Westchester's Journal News as well as our second annual attempt to spot the %$#@% pairing.

Steve Elkington's U.S. Open sectional WD over not getting to wear spikes generated a heated discussion...

Smolmania: "Soft spikes make greens better. There's no doubt about it. Come out and see a public course like Dubsdread at 3 o'clock in the afternoon on Saturday. In the old days, the greens looked like there had been an army of elephants trampeling them. Not any more.

Chuck: "the Sectional application let players know in advance what courses were softspike-only. Elkington's position becomes undefensible in that regard -- he could have/should have known long before the qualifier date and acted accordingly.

NRH: In theory, I'm with Elk on this one...it is his profession. One day of a few guys wearing spikes will not ruin the greens and he is correct that it should be the same at every site.

JPB: "The USGA should address this and go spikeless at all the championships and qualifiers next year."

Brian: "Spike marks? What about the bottle cap depressions left with soft spikes by guys over 200 pounds? That's like putting through land mines. Give me spike marks any day of the week."

Peter Kostis wondered why there was no outrage over distance increases on the LPGA Tour and you, like I, just loved his logic.

Reader Barry: "About the time the power game was completely taking over men's tennis in the early 90s, people would trot out this same nonsense. 'Yeah, the men's game may be going to hell...but the women are fun to watch now...'
Be patient, Peter. Before you can say “brand identity," power will beat the life out the women's game too. And then we can kick back and watch robotic, artless play on both tours.

Chuck: "The last time Kostis bubbled up out of the murk of Fortune Brands' marketing offices, he was proclaiming that it was player fitness that was to "blame." If we only had 400 or 500 more 140-lb. 16 year-old girls to prove the point, I'd think he might have a real trend here..."

But besides Michelle Wie's attempt to qualify for the Open, the big story remained Jack Nicklaus's decision to furrow bunkers at Muirfield Village. More final verdicts...

Scott S: "So, if a host decided to use hard as rock greens, or fairways cut at 3/4 an inch, or bunkers which use native sand as opposed to doctored-in-a-lab Bunker Sand (TM), will we see the same complaints? All of these could be viewed as "contrivances" compaired to many tour stops, but are a regular part of life on many golf courses."

Matt: "I don't know about anybody else but I think it definitely takes skill to get the ball out of a bad lie in the sand-it's never just hack and hope. And surely ballstriking precision that avoids the bunkers in the first place is a more important skill than playing out of the bunkers themselves. The bigger issue is that fairways bunkers cannot be placed properly on a golf course anymore because of the disparity between long and short hitters. Just get the ball rolled back and there's no need for this hulabaloo about furrows."

D. Edgard: "Well played Mr. Nicklaus and everybody around trying to preserve the esence of the game,

JM: "I wonder if working with Tom Doak on Sebonack influenced Nicklaus in any way and made it easier for him to make this excellent decision. And it *was* possible to recover with a bit of creativity... I think Mickelson demonstrated this best on #6 when he windmilled it from the fairway bunker and sailed it 160 yards to within 5 feet of the hole. That was creative shotmaking."

Week In Review, May 28-June 3: Bunker Furrowing

Rex Hoggard's column about reduced playing opportunities for Tour school grads spawned a heated debate about the current PGA Tour system and its future.

Sam Weinman penned a great story from Winged Foot and a debate broke out over...Tiger wearing shorts.

Randell Mell revealed the worst kept secret in golf: the feud between Rees and Robert Trent Jones Jr., and Rees'  plans to redo his dad's course, with DK noting, "Well Rees is nothing if not consistent. He'll even tear up his father's course in the name of "progress".

But the big story of the week: Jack Nicklaus adding furrowed rakes to the anti-distance equation for this week's Memorial. And the early reviews were understandably mixed.

JPB: "I think this is an area where added difficulty is more interesting. Perfect, consistent bunkers aren't interesting. Getting luck involved after a poor shot is interesting. It is why poker is interesting on TV, the better hand loses a lot. It isn't like good shots are getting punished; you just have a variable punishment. Better tough bunkers than 22 yard wide fairways and excessive rough IMO."

All For Furrows wrote: "I second JPB's thoughts - bunkers have not been enforcing the penalty they were meant to enforce on better players. I hope the PGA Tour has a thick enough skin to put up with the whining of the players and to continue this experiment at other Tour stops, and the implement it."

Matt: "One of my favorite courses in the world, the original Muirfield, held up a few years ago to technology in the British Open. I think, in part, due to the severity of the fairway bunkers and the players opting to take the strategic route 'round the course."

AP Maran wrote: "As the game continues to distance itself from the original, "unfair" game where not-perfect fairways, bunkers and greens where part of the obstacle, now they try to make it unfair again but by preparation, inspite of Jones comments. Next step must be cutting the greens unevenly, make fairways 20 feet wide and always 10 inches high rough in front of the greens. All prepared with the best intentions.

Chris wrote: "The USGA has allowed most of the skill level to be reduced by todays technology, Nicklaus's idea (out of desperation) makes sense."

Gus: "The fact that so much thought and effort is going into the bunkers and other maintenance minutia is disturbing. Most, if not all courses in America spend more time, money, and effort maintaining bunkers than they do greens. This is an upside down priority. While this may be fine at a big tournament, the fact that it is happening to some degree at every course only raises the cost of playing the game and leads to a decline in participation. If Jack wants to make the bunkers difficult again, he should do what we do at the muni- rake them once or twice a week only. It's a hazard after all.

Smolmania: "At the Dunes Club, a cool nine hole Nugent design in New Buffalo, MI which is supposed to be an homage to Pine Valley, the bulk of the bunkers on the course (of which there are many) don't have rakes. Makes for some difficult shots out there, but bunkers are after all supposed to be hazards."

R Thompson writes: "Another "Mickey Mouse" course set up to try and bring back some integrity to the sport, where the USGA has had their head buried in one of those deep troughs."

RM: "After reading about the furrowing this week, then watching the telecast today, then reading these comments, I am now definitely in favor of this practice. Even tour pros (or especially tour pros) need to realize that there is more to this game than ordered play on perfect grounds."

DK: "They're panicking that they have just seen the wave of the future and they are lashing out at everyone. This is hilarious and better than I thought it would be. Mickelson seemed to be the only one with poise."

MacDuff: "if it sounds like sour grapes, then that's just what it is...bad breaks and uneven lies are part and parcel of the auld game...perhaps pros of recent decades have had it too cushy; expectations of perfection can only breed a "princess & the pea" mentality."

Pete the Luddite: "I like the furrows. Even better, bring out the horses and run them through the bunkers a few times. Too much grooming these days, let them earn their way out of the bunker!"

Glyn:  "When a pro is happy to be in a bunker because they know they can make an easy out, something is wrong. Like Jack said, I would rather see interesting recovery attempts in reasonable rough than ho hum bunker play."

JohnV: "Now that the bunkers are inconsistent, I'd like to see the rough that way also. I'm tired of perfectly manicured rough. Guys should get good and bad breaks there also. For me nothing is harder than a pitch to a downhill green from a bare dirt patch with a big clump of grass behind the ball. Why do they think we call it "rough"?"

JM: "The furrows seem to be sifting out much more than the more skillful players... there's nothing worse than a guy who blames the course for his own mistakes (or opens his mouth and inserts his foot like Price). Consistency across the tour is certainly an issue, though. I agree. Two thumbs up for Nicklaus."

a.c.: "why is changing the rake any more or less "Mickey Mouse" or "tricked up" than narrowing fairways or growing the rough longer, Mr. Maggert?"

Sean Murphy: "Are we seeing the first examples of bifurication in the rules of golf at the professional level? So, if it's bifurication making its way into the sport at the professional level, to try and artificially increase the difficulty level that there once was, I say, bring back the wood headed clubs, and the three piece wound balls. Lets get this bifurication going, lets make golf at the professional level "TOUGH AGAIN", right John Hawkins?"

Week in Review, May 21-27: Players Say The Funniest Things

What should have been a quiet week in May produced several interesting comments from noted Tour players, and plenty of great stuff as usual from you readers. Thanks as always for the laughs and insights. Some highlights:

On the news that Donald Trump had cleared a vital hurdle with his Scottish course by preventing windmills from being raised within view, Scott noted, "If the location of the golf course is also a good place for windmills, then the golf played there is going to very difficult. There are not very many successful golf courses built where the wind always blows. (why would you build a windmill farm in a place without constant winds?) But what does Donald Trump golf designs know about site location and prevailing winds?"

Everything, Scott!

Regarding Ben Crane's inability to speed up, earning him yet another lecture (but no penalty) from the Tour, OldSchool writes, "The neglect by PVB to deter this professional conduct unbecoming of a professional at Q-School and even on the Nationwide Tour has added to this topic. Rory made a bad decision last year on how to deal with this, to date it's the only real decision that has been made. Where Rory drew a ton of outrage over that incident, he also helped bring the awareness level way up. What's happened to Ben Crane thus far, nothing?"

Speaking of the Tour, their rumored FedEx Cup points system continues to be met with plenty of questions. Reader J.P.:  "Skewing points for Majors and WGC's, (and THE PLAYERS) is ridiculous. The PGA Tour has been running all sorts of "incentivizing" plans since 1998. These plans have all worked as designed, putting more money into top players pockets, while allowing these players to continue to play only 18 to 20 tournaments a year."

Meanwhile J.T. loves the new logo unveiled: "I thought your art department must have spent a few minutes coming up with that logo, but then I realized that it was the real thing. Brilliant design, how do these people come up with such creative ideas!!!"

On the thrilling news that the PGA will be returning to Oak Hill in 2013, Stan DeBarons reports enthusiastically: "I just got off the phone with my travel agent. I've secured for August 2013, a hotel room for the week as well as tickets for the Rochester Dinner Theater's production of Fiddler On The Roof for friday night."

Photos were posted of the new look Ohio State course, dubbed a "Nick-enzie" by Jack Nicklaus and host to this week's NCAA Women's Championship won by Duke. Reader AP Maran writes, "As MacKenzie said regarding bunkers 'It is often possible to make a hole sufficiently interesting with one or two bunkers the most,' and here we see a lot of bunkers added, many of them with Nicklaus favorite type with the tongue of grass in the middle, none resembles a MacKenzie bunker. the two in 12th and 13th are hideous monsters, freak show."

RM wrote, "1. The visual experience of this course is now dominated by the bunkering. The bunkers don't seem to flow with the rest of the course. 2. I believe the brown dirt bunkers gave the course a more natural feel. I love Augusta, but the glaring white sand is not always a good look. 3. If I were a student, I'd rather play the old course for $18 than the new course for $30. I'm sure there is some local muni that will see a rise in student play."

Now, for those player remarks.  On Davis Love's assertion that there have been minor advances in equipment, Steven T. writes, "Minor advances in equipment? Will Titleist cut him off of his 5M/year deal now?"  OldSchool wrote, "With all the minor advances in equipment, why all the major renovations in golf courses?: And DK: "Minor? Hell by his own words Mickelson has gained about 80yds since 1997."

Jim Furyk and Colin Montgomerie called for the golf ball to be rolled back this week, prompting Sean Murphy to say, "Interesting to finally see more of the games elite players speaking out about the state of the game (the distance SNAFU), especially since the PGA Tour is dependent on TV ratings, and where John Hawkins has informed everyone on how low and miserable those ratings go. People are tired of watching "Long Drive Contest Scrambles". It's not golf and has little appeal when compared to how golf use to be played at the professional level."

The rough harvest at uh, "The Foot," as dubbed so dreadfully by Tim Rosaforte, is going well if you like lots of rye grass, but not so well in the view of Walter Driver, who whipped out his Blackberry to message staffer Mike Davis.

NRH: "The head of the USGA using a Blackberry on the course? God help us." And Pete the Luddite: "Let's hope that they do something about what can only be a debacle in the making and set the rough up better than described. I don't think they will, though. Players and fans may complain, but as long as the tv ratings and ticket sales are up, why change, right?"

R. Thompson wrote, "I'm situating myself for another Major let down at Winged Foot. Tapered rough, and wind mills on the greens, who are these clowns in the blue blazers? They are the Ivy League, badminton, intermural, all star team. It's obvious these fellows couldn't beat there way out of a wet paper bag."

Ian Woosnam's assertion that shorter players have little future touched off several comments. Steve White wrote: "Did he watch last week's playoff at Colonial? Richard S. Johnson is 5-7 and still managed to hit the drive on the second hole of the playoff just shy of 300. I also don't see Tim Herron, who hit his drive on the same hole 350 yards, as a fitness obsessed player, yet he managed to get to the winner's circle. These kind of generalizations in Woosnam's answers are meaningless, at best.

Reader Dean didn't agree: "You're right Steve, every leader board is chock full of overweight gluttons pounding 350 yard drives and yet some 5'7, working his ass off overtime, manages to walk a tight rope some given week to prove that distance is not an issue. Wether its Clark at Augusta or Johnson at Colonial, where are the rest of the 5,7 players filling up the leader board. Give us one leader board this year with 4 players under 5'9."

Finally, Brad Faxon touched off a firestorm with his remarks about the ball getting too much blame and athleticism being the source of future distance advances.

Glyn: "who said he never works out?...was that J.B. Holmes.? Must be natural athleticism. So if it's athleticism, it shouldn't matter what ball a pro uses right?"

Chuck: "...somebody needs to seriously get in Faxon's face about accusing Nickluas of holding to his position on golf ball developments because, 'If Jack Nicklaus had a successful ball, he would never say another word. But he's never sold a ball that's made a dime.' That says it all to me. Maybe Faxon is actually right. That players' opinions on balls are shaped -- determined, really -- by the company that they have their ball endorsement deals with. If so, I rest my case. Faxon, we know who you're working for. Please don't ever apologize for your statement, or retract it in any way. It is too valuable as ammunition in the ball-regulation battle. A question for the class -- Can anyone name one Titleist staff player who has openly talked about his or her views that the golf ball should be better regulated?"

And Barry: "See the movement of my pocketwatch, back and forth, back and forth....you are feeling very relaxed now...repeat after me..."distance is not changing the game"..."the ball is not a problem"..."this is not about the money..."

Week In Review, May 14-20: Lettin' The Club Do That For You

The week got off to another fun start with John Huggan's column on Andrew Coltart, who lamented the demise of more subtle shotmaking elements and the huge advantages that long hitters are getting, prompting OldSchool to write, "Distance Myth #11. Professional golfers are not paying attention to the tremendous distance gains over the past 4 years. Specifically those gaining an incremental distance advantage."

A pair of John Hawkins blog posts touched off many comments about the state of Tour golf here, but oddly, not on the Golf Digest site!

The first post was on the PGA Tour's television ratings decline, prompting reader Matt to write, "Today's one-dimensional power game is being played on boring tracks built to accomodate housing, for paychecks that would take most fans lifetimes to make. No one worries about choking anymore-they know they have a big bank account to console them."

And Carl wrote: "Put some damn fire back into the competition and maybe golf will be interesting as a spectator sport once again and not seem to be just a gathering of nice fellows content to make a good check and have a good time. Screw the good time, get serious!"

And RGB wondered this: "With Commissioner Finchem renewing his own contract, doesn't the membership question his process? In all 501 C 6 organizations the membership decides those decisions for themselves because they are the shareholders of the corporation. Finchem is also not allowed by law to withhold the financial information of such an organization from a dues paying (shareholders) union incorporated into a 501 C 6 labor league. That is a serious breach of fiduciary duty on his part."

Regarding Hawkins' post on the likely FedEx Cup points system, Sean Murphy asked, "Can John Hawkins write us a story about the Charles Schwab Cup (another points race), who actually won the last 5 of them, and why we even care?"

Reader Chris wondered about Hawkins' line on the Tour "failing to realize that the boat would move much faster with a lot fewer oars in the water," noting that "in rowing, taller, heavier individuals have a small, but significant advantage. It is based on the same physical principle that causes boats with more rowers to go faster."

Those nautical metaphors! Is rowing considered nautical!? Anyway...

Regarding the ongoing Fed Ex Cup points watch, Mike Cummins noted that MacDuff's "points structure is the only structure that truly rewards often and consistent play. I would hope just one thing from you, if the Tour does decide to invent their 5th Pyramid Scheme pay out, that you would continue to provide your points structure model here so we can compare how bad the Tour's is flawed."

On Canadian Open and it's lousy date on the new PGA Tour schedule, Wayne K said the "RCGA should consider switching the Canadian Open from a PGA Tour event to a European Tour event. They could have a date in the prime of the summer close to the US Open to attract Europeans that are travelling to the US for that event. And Europeans playing most of the year on the PGA tour would have the benefit of being able to collect Ryder Cup points in North America which would be of benefit every two years."

Jonathan Cummings pointed out that the Booz Allen is facing many issues thanks to its recent decline: "In years past Avenel has had waiting lists to become one of the 1300 volunteers that help put on the tournament. In a financial statement of the times, Booz announced that volunteers will be charged this year (not uncommon at PGA tournamnets). The volunteer pool reacted - just 4 weeks from the tournament they have only 500 folks who have signed on. This is not enough to pull off the tournament. What are the chances that a PGA tournament gets canceled because of not enough volunteers?"

Easily the most discussed story of the week continues to be the fascinating two-driver debate that was reignited by Monty's remark about letting the club do the work for you, with both sides making compelling cases.

tread softly: "...this exemplifies why the golfing powers-that-be must get their act together.. we are witnessing the surreptitious slithering towards the demise of any artistry, as so elegantly vented by Andrew Coltart in John Huggan's recent column... l would even venture to call it 'back door cheating'."

And on the other side, Smolmania: "14 clubs in the bag. You choose which ones you want to carry. You want 2 drivers, knock your socks off. I carry 5 wedges. Is that "cheating"? Sorry, I just don't see it. There's a lot bigger problems in golf -- the ball, for example? -- that I don't think this is remotely one of them."

A fine point by cmoore: "What if Hogan had decided to carry two drivers: one with lead tape on the heel and one with lead tape on the toe to encourage different ball flight? Would this have caused any controversy? Is there any real difference between the draw/fade bias drivers of today and the lead-taped drivers of the past?"

But then there is this take from St. Pete: "The ball is going so far today as Nicklaus pointed out, that long hitters can take 4 or 5 clubs out of the bag...Jack was correct, players like this can take 4 or 5 clubs out of the bag today because the ball is going to far. And because that is true, Phil has plenty of room in that bag for 3 drivers. Fill er-up please, I'll have another!"

I asked an innocent question about linked stories opening in the existing window or a new window, and new window won 13 to 3, with some votes in between.

Hale Irwin endorsed the USGA's new tiered rough concept, but Glyn noted, "the problem I see getting worse is ability of fans to see the action. The Masters suffered from that this year as 'patrons' had less access due to course lengthening, now they will see less due to rough 'lengthening'?"

Pete the Luddite said that "Hale's comments are especially sad for someone who has spent so much time in the game. Narrower fairways and wider roughs = less fan access. Remember, Hale, that these are the people (aside from the corporate sponsors) who provide those big winner's checks. Driving the fans out of the game (pun intended) is only going to hurt golf in the long run, and further marginalize the sport."

And regarding Bob Verdi's entertaining chat with Fred Couples, who pointed out the silliness of the PGA Tour locking themselves into a 15-year deal with The Golf Channel, reader Chris asked, "How many bars have the golf channel on? None that I've been to."

Week In Review May 7-13: Welcome Billy

We kicked off the week discussing the departure of Hootie Johnson, and while I mourn his retirement, reader Chris H. says, "Let's face it, Hootie choked on so many different fronts. There are so many that it's a waste of time to go into all of them. Now if ANGC can get Hootie's name off the course design and restore it to Jones-MacKenzie original then I'll be a happy hacker."

John Huggan wrote about the slow play epidemic, prompting this from reader R. Thompson: "No wonder Tim Finchem won't release the details of the new television contracts. It's as Huggie has pointed out, people are bored witless, and it's mainly the equipment dwarfing golf courses. However, if courses are lengthened rounds will simply take longer to complete. Let's stop the nonsense and slow the ball down now."

After Billy Payne's first press conference where he used some interesting language regarding the possible "resolution" of the equipment situation, Old School wrote:  "1. Nothing over 360cc driver heads. 2. A tolerance on Cor from 109mph to 112mph showing an 83% transfer of energy and a diminishing Cor value starting at 113mph.
3. A restriction on Core Hardness for golf balls, going back to the core hardness of balls used in 2001-2002 whould be fine."

St. Pete said, "'RESOLUTION', looks like Billy and the Boys have been studying the stats for the last 5 years on distance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened from 2002 to 2003, that's when things really got out of hand and have continued to escalate. The balls and drivers of 2002 is where the USGA said it was drawing the line. I agree with OldSchool, lets simply go back to drivers being under 400CC and golf balls that somewhat compressed."

The Bloomberg story on drugs in golf elicited a whopping 31 comments, all of them tgreat. A few highlights:

R.Thompson: "It's interesting to see the PGA Tour go after a Casey because they were worried about endurance being one of the requirements but then pull this sort of phony baloney out. The PGA Tour should be testing to find out who is benefiting from steriod use giving those players an unfair advantage with endurance."

Michael: "The PGA Tour and USGA do not even test for recreational drugs, it has to be the only major sport that plays for millions, and where players endorsements are in the millions, then dismisses the notion that there is any drug use taking place. What are they smoking in Ponte Vedra?"

Sean Murphy: "Whoever thought professional golfers had a drinking problem? Who ever thought professional golfers had a gambling problem? Who ever thought professional golfers wouldn't be experimenting with recreational drugs? Who ever thinks golfers are not experimenting with steriods is completely naive."

GeorgeM: "While control of steroid use by minors is appropriate concern for parents and schools, why is it an issue for governing bodies? The current state of affairs in sports other than golf is not helped by testing. There is too much testing and too severe penalty for suspect results."

H.W.: "...the PGA Tour should be required to meet the same standards that Congress is requiring MLB. Those standards are being imposed by Congress to ensure the youth of America is not taking steriods to one day become MLB players. The same common sense should apply to the PGA Tour, and Congress should be asking for drug testing to be imposed for all the same reasons."

J.D.: "Until there is evidence? The evidence is in the testing, without testing there is no evidence. I noticed that the Commissioner declined to comment on something important to the integrity of the sport. He's not only showing his lack of integrity but is also sending the message to pro golfers no testing will be conducted until there is sufficient evidence."

Rob: "Recreational drugs, or even sports enhancing drugs, anyone who oversees rolling a green of a U.S. Open in the middle of the night should be drug tested!"

Rick reminded us of this quote from Jimmy Vespe: "It was a refreshing article you just ran about drugs not being found in golf, but it is not entirely accurate. I was an intercollegiate golfer for a major Division-I college, and have plenty of friends on Tour. I can say without question drugs -- though on a small scale -- have been used to enhance performance in golf for years. Guys smoke pot quite frequently on Tour to stay focused and calm, and take beta blockers for the same reason. It is in ALL sports -- unfortunately."

N Gn:  "Tour officials don´t push for drug testing because they are afraid of what will come out. They lie when they say there are no evidence. French Open, a few years back. French authorities notify they will conduct drug testing during the championship. What happens, more than 40 players withdraw the week prior the tournament! Need more evidence?"

And J.D. again: "Swinging for the walls with today's drivers and golf balls, where players are left with wedges from heavy rough, is all about being super strong to survive and claim greatness in the process. Greatness today based on illegal substances building muscle and endurance for golfers is the topic and testing should be conducted periodically."

On the reader report about a power struggle at Augusta National, RGB had this to say:  "Buying up companies and selling off their parts for profit is second nature for the members of Augusta. Capitalism is king, except when it comes to this one particular golf course. There's the line in the sand and this golf ball thing has now gone too far. Good luck Payne."

And Hux: "If Hootie and his cronies are the good guys, then the badies must really suck."

Regarding John Davis' story about equipment testing at ASU that might pass along savings to golfers, Scott wrote: "Pass On A Savings? Manufacturers started producing todays multi-layered balls for pennys compared to three piece wound balls, and then jacked up the price of todays balls. Who is he kidding?"

Regarding the latest confusion on rangefinders reported on by Jim Achenbach, Scott Stearns writes, "Whats the big deal, anyway? the USGA wanted to create an way for the growing number of GPS-enabled courses to remain within the umbrella of the rules. Most tournaments aren't allowing them. So What? If your course votes not to use them so be it."

Ned Ludd wrote, "I'll tell you about "slope," as in "this is indeed a slippery slope we find ourselves sliding down." If someone at the USGA only had Colbertian gonads, these devices would have been declared illegal from the get go. How can handicaps be compared and utilized when one is the product of a rangefinder and the other is not?"

And finally, Smolmania made his most spirited defense yet of rangefinders: "Information should not be illegal. Especially when the pace of play is retarded by those pacing off distances to the detriment of everyone else on the golf course. As for the stupid people who buy a device that claims to measure the distance a golf ball will travel up and down a particular slope, who does Bushnell think they're kidding? Up hill 10% translates to x less distance? For whom? With what clubs, what balls, what swing speeds? Why doesn't the USGA spend some of their war chest figuring out why the damn ball goes so far, instead of worrying so darn much about how far it is on my next shot? Oh that's right, excess distance is a myth."

Just another quiet week in the weird world of modern golf!

Week In Review, April 30-May 6: Goodbye Hootie and Earl

Earl Woods passed away, Hootie Johnson stepped down, John Daly started plugging his book  and Brad Klein chimed in for this site's third Taking AIM installment. And once again, lots of great comments from readers.

Regarding the Klein discussion, which included his thoughts on the planned Winged Foot "tiered rough" concept, reader F.X. said, "Graduated rough is a classic example of reinventing the wheel. What the USGA seems to be striving for is preserving the opportunity for recovery in the context of a penal architecture. It's a strained technocentric solution that will have all sorts of consequences, particularly the intended-by-the-mower-manufacturers ones pointed out in this discussion."

Meanwhile The Donald's plans for a Scottish golf course got plenty of attention.  Later in the week, John Huggan weighed in.  Reader Hux chimed in on the Donald's pride in his ability to create top quality medical facilities to go with his golf course: "He said they build big golf courses, and they understand how the medical situation needs to be done. Can Crenshaw administer so much as a band-aid without getting an end all twisted? I thought not. With medical facilities like they're going to have, even if they don't get the British Open, there's always the British Grand Prix.  Always have a plan B you see. Smart fellow, The Donald."

Rex Hoggard noticed some of Dale Jr.'s recent comments about settling for 3rd and wondered how that would impact the FedEx Cup. It prompted plenty of thoughts on the FedEx Cup.

NRH: "As for being satisfied with a nice check vs. winning as the only thing that matters, this has been going on for quite awhile. It sounds terrible to say, read or hear, but it is the truth. The younger guys on Tour can't identify with hustlers along the lines of Trevino or even Rich Beem's stint at the Speaker Shack. The purses are insane...it doesn't seem like that long ago you would read the results in the back of the sports page on Monday morning and shake your head at the $180,000 next to the winner's name. That's tenth place money now."

GeorgeM noted that "The Nextel Cup is flawed by the VERY low number permitted to qualify. The FedEx Cup will admit the vast majority of fully exempt players. On the other hand, each cup attempts to minimise any lead in points gained during the season. The end result will not be a season champion, but the player who is playing best in early September."

Sean Murphy asked, "What happened to great golf selling itself, why all the smoke and mirrors??? Players in the locker room on the PGA Tour are really scratching their heads, what will they think of next???"

Regarding the driving distance stats and the New Orleans event, Steve White wrote: "I remember being on the course during one of the first years they played at English Turn and watching Greg Norman hit what everybody thought was a Herculean 3-iron to get it on the green in two at 15. Now, it's a routine driver, mid-iron hole. The only players who don't go for the green in two are those who drive the ball in the rough."

A reader from Spain kindly sent in a few entertaining photos, including a religiously-correct bunker that MacDuff noted was the ultimate cross bunker. You be the judge!

On the subject of shot shaping, grooves and the changing game, John V asked, "I've seen Tiger and others shape shots. Is it perhaps that many of today's players don't know how or have forgotten how? Is that because they've only been taught one way to hit the ball or really because it can't be done?"

Sean Murphy noted that "A rules official shared with me on Monday that players are changing wedges every two weeks and irons every 4 weeks, all in an effort to be able to work these rocks today. Yes, it is possible to somewhat work them, but it is an awfully expensive proposition for the average Joe who would like to be able to do the same."

On the USGA Distance Myths, as regurgitated by the USA Today, John V pointed out that one of the readers seemed to not be aware of USGA testing standards, perhaps justifying the myths: "One of the myths is that there are not standards. This guy certainly sounds like he thinks there are none."

Tom Wishon responded that it may just be a myth that the USGA actually tests today's typical launch conditions: "There is a .083 on Cor for drivers witnessed at 109mph so that no more than an 83% transfer of energy can be witnessed.  John V., what is the ceiling for Cor transfer as it relates to thicker club faces bouncing a harder core golf ball at 120mph where not all professionals on the PGA Tour swing the club 120mph? A COR reading for any swing speed above 112mph should not be allowed to be witnessed at anything over an 83% transfer of energy. That is where the ceiling should be with regards to Cor benefits for drivers."

On the news that the USGA is finally getting around some of the rolled back balls that they asked for a year ago, reader Matt wrote, "They don't want to drag it on forever but that's exactly what they're doing. Meanwhile the integrity of the game continues to erode...I sincerely hope this is the last year of the juiced ball era on tour, but I won't hold my breath."

Our resident think, Pete the Luddite, asked Matt for patience. But I asked Pete if he would conduct research as the USGA has, issueing press releases dispelling myths before the results were completed. Pete wrote: "Pre-supposing the results for the client and using cash as a means to drive the answer desired. I've seen those consultants out there who will tell you what you want, regardless of fact, if they are paid enough. Makes me sick. Ethical twists occur, and this is essentially what USGA's "researchers" are doing. For them to state that it will be "done when it's done" is farcical."

David Feherty joined the long list advocating a change in the ball. Reader C.W. wrote, "Yes, the only thing that needs to be done is standardize the core hardness of the golf ball and the Cor benefits of drivers...It would be easy to soften up the core of modern golf balls while maintaining the same flight characteristics. The golf balls have been made harder to increase their distance by expanding the Cor of a driver further."

And finally, the bombshell of the week: Hootie Johnson handing over the keys to Augusta to Little Feat co-founder Atlanta Olympic game head man Billy Payne. Nice work by reader Smolmania noticing that Payne is associated with Eric Gleacher, former member of the USGA-Augusta cabal.

I'm sure we'll get more discussed on the subject of our dearly beloved Hootie next week, but he has a fan in reader Matt:  "Im actually disappointed in a way over this-say what you want about him, but Hootie really stirred things up in his time as Augusta chair; he raised The Masters profile I think. You may not have agreed with the way he did things, but you respected him because he didn't care what people like Martha Burk had to say. He didn't even flinch when the majority of the golfing world condemned him for the course changes. Hey, the guy stuck to his principles."

Too bad for golf that he didn't stick to Jones and MacKenzie's design principles! 

Week In Review, April 23-30: No More Myths

Sunday started with a  must-read John Huggan profile of Geoff Ogilvy on the state of the game, prompting this from reader Matt: Ten years ago you could attend a PGA Tour event, watch a pro hit a drive, and in all honesty say, "I can do that every once in a while." There was a sense of connection between the average golfer and the tour pros. Now, it seems as if the pros are playing on the moon. We just can't relate to the game the pros play at all. The game of golf has gone missing. Can someone safely return it?"

And NRH had this to say about the man who spells his first name so perfectly: "It is very encouraging to see a relativeley young guy 'get-it'...of course he is Australian. Heard an amazing stat a couple of weeks ago that Jonathan Byrd is the only American player under the age of 30 with more than one win on Tour."

Another week meant more classic MBAspeak from Commissioner Finchem, including his assertion that his greatest accomplishment remains wonderful communication between himself and players. That prompted Old School to write: "The Tour has communicated so well with players that Greg Norman is threatening to sue for minutes to meetings and all of the financial records. The communication between those that work for the Tour and the players can't be as huge of an accomplishment for Tim with Norman sounding off. If this is Tim's biggest feat, then he certainly hasn't done anything significant."

Later, Finchem did a Q&A with the New Orleans paper, discussing the Tour's unique ability to reach CEO's and "skew" to their unique demographic. Jonathon Cummings suggested that "Timmy should make it pay-per-view and pipe it directly into the CEO boardrooms!" Meanwhile, reader Scott S pointed out, "I've never seen skew used in a positive light... until now."

We learned new details of the R&A's initial ventures into course design, prompting head man Peter Dawson to say, "Sometimes you can't fully appreciate the impact of an alteration until it's been built and you have another look at them in reality rather than on a drawing." In the same story, Mike Aitken noted that a Turnberry bunker was filled because "the hazard couldn't be seen from the tee."

That prompted reader DK to say, "The R&A is saying this! The R&A! The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews headquartered at The Old Course is having bunkers removed because they can't be seen from the tee. I feel like barracading myself in my house and taking hostages." Amen brother.

We also learned about the real reason behind the 84 Lumber Classic's demise, where the daughter of Joe Hardy "said her company will be spending 'lots of money' to aggressively purchase smaller lumber and framing companies to eliminate competition."

The Big K replied to that: "If sponsoring a PGA Tour event does not make financial sense, why do it? Especially since the PGAT has not proven to be particularly loyal to anyone...Still, it is hard to sympathize with the comment about buying smaller companies to eliminate competition. It wasn't quoted, hopefully it is a little out of context.

And finally, don't miss Brad Klein's story on distance measuring devices, which includes a breakdown of which golf associations are allowing them and which aren't. And in their defense, Smolmania wrote: "There may certainly be no question that idiots will play slowly, and that using range finders will not help them. However, there may also be no question that in the vast majority of cases, a golfer who may simply point a Bushnell at a flag, or the top of a bunker, and get a yardage is capable of playing more quickly. . . a boon to all."

Week In Review, April 16-22: Distance Myths

We kicked the week off with John Huggan's excellent update on Musselburgh, prompting reader tread softly to write, "Musselburgh Golf Course must be saved from floodlighting - for it's history alone..and what's wrong with a little sentimentality in an increasingly cynical world? and when was floodlighting anything but a harsh intrusion on nature's own 24-hour illumination set-up!?"

Regarding the ongoing Augusta National debate, I pointed out the difference between Hootie Johnson's view of long hitters and the views of most traditionalists (who don't blame the players for simply taking advantage of equipment).  Sean Murphy chimed in, "Come on Hootie, Manufacture a True Golf Ball, and restore the sport to what it once was, 'GOLF'!" While Carl wrote, "Hootie, please restore, Jones's and Mackenzie's true test of golf. Manufacture your own ball, and lets remind the people sitting at home what golf use to be, and how it should be played."

We monitored the Augusta National course changes reaction. Jaime Diaz weighed in with a lukewarm analysis, as did Peter Kostis.  Both are interesting reads worth checking out if you missed them the first time.

Gary Van Sickle analyzed the changes from the patrons point of view, prompting reader Glyn to say, "He has a point. There is so much roped off area it creates congestion and bad viewing. And also awkward flow getting from hole to hole at times." MacDuff, who attended this year, wrote that the "introduction of more seating areas has narrowed viewing on the whole. 14 green now only visible from the rear for standing patrons, small seating area to the left only way to get a good view of buried elephant. On 17 green no one could now see from right side i.e. Jack's 1986 putt from the famous film-clip."

Greg Norman was back in the news, still awaiting to see the PGA Tour's books, as he would seemingly be allowed to do as a member. Reader R. Thompson asks, "If Finchem was never a professional golfer, why would Norman have to ask for all of the financial information when that information is suppose to be made membership knowledge, especially with the organization being a non-profit."

The Tour is also not making any friends in Washington where Leonard Shapiro reported that the D.C. stop has been given a May ultimatum to find a sponsor.  Pat wrote, "Finchem's strategy of lieing to Booze Allen about a TPC Avenal re-do and then lieing to members of Congressional in an effort to stiff arm his agenda into place has rubbed people here in D.C. the wrong way."

And M. Kavanaugh agreed and wondered: "I'm afraid that other title sponsors will follow in Booze Allen's footsteps, pulling those dollars and investing them in a manner which grants the corporate name more recognition.

The Phil two driver debate continued, and I remain somewhere in the middle of both sides on this. Some wonderful reader comments on this, with most making strong points in support of the idea that this is just a traditional part of the game, and not an example that technology has gotten out of hand.

Dan G wrote, "What about Ray Floyd adding a 5 wood when he torched Augusta the year he won? It's not like the idea of adding clubs based on the course you're playing just came about yesterday." Reader Simmz said, "Sarazen created the sandwedge; Travis utilized "technology" with the center-shafted Schenectady putter...While I personally embrace tradition, it is difficult to argue that any of these club adjustments and innovations are wrong when the governing bodies deem them legal >>> circling back to Geoff's original beef with the governing bodies - they have lost control of the game!"

Glyn asked, "What's the difference between 2 drivers or 4 wedges? A club is a club. If he wants to carry 2 drivers he has to take a club from somewhere else. The extra driver isn't the issue, the issue is that he can give up another club somewhere else because of how the game is played at the pro level."

While John V says, "If the club that he hits 25 yards shorter than his driver had a "2" on the bottom, none of this would have been news." And RM says "Phil is a pure shotmaker, and a crative genius. I would put his skills against any player from any era using any equipment. Golf is about making choices. He is obviously making good ones. I don't see the issue at all."

While St. Pete replied, "The issue RM is that professionals could take out 4 or 5 clubs today and not really miss any of them because of how far the ball goes today."

Tom Fazio seemed pleased with his changes to Augusta National and Winged Foot, and as always, pays no attention to what the master architects wrote or the potential ramifications. Reader af wondered if anyone is "concerned that land costs money,takes more money to maintain and potentially could reduce the number of people that can or even want to play the game.not to mention , maybe reducing the number of players based on size or strength of the person. we are losing the "greatest game ever played" and very few seem concerned."

Hux chimed in too with some killer MacKenzie quotes like this one: "It is often suggested that we have already got to the limit of flight of a golf ball. I do not believe it, as there is no limit to science.” And Hux wrote: "Seeing Mr. Fazio has gone to the 'scripture', does he believe what's good for the goose is also good for the gander?"

On the USGA position paper which I haven't had a chance to read yet, there were plenty of interesting reader comments. Smolmania: "if you try to tell me that JB, Bubba, Tiger and Phil don't have a disproportionate advantage over the Corey Pavins of the world, you've got your head in the clouds."

Pete the Luddite replied, "I absolutely loved reading this article and I'm glad you found and posted it for us. It shows all of us what we can do to lengthen our game if we want. Optimizing launch conditions will get you further off the tee than swinging out of your shoes at the ball. Dammit, my father was right all along while I was growing up.  Swing smooth and hit the ball correctly. THAT IS THE MISSING/HIDDEN POINT OF THE ARTICLE: you will go further by hitting the ball best, not harder. Realistically, we aren't going to be able to warp up our swing speeds substantially, but we CAN swing better at the ball and launch it better."

The USGA, after years of silence on the distance debate (and the overall message: distance is a myth...great call there!). They issued their Distance Myths at the Masters and we are finally able to look at them.

Regarding the myths by Dick Rugge, reader J.P. writes, "Can Dick explain to the posters here how the distance exploded in 2003? Why the ball blaster isn't in use anymore to test Cor? And why Iron Byron was calibrated at 120 instead of 109? How long was the blaster and 109 used by iron Byron?"

Ryan Ballengee took them on in a story that prompted reader P. Bigley to write, "I looked at the differences between 2002 and 2003, wow! It appears the USGA choose money over principle. Sad."

Weeks In Review, April 2-15: Masters

Since there was no week in review while the Masters was unfolding, we're playing catch-up here. And instead of going through all of the key stories posted, I'd direct you to the Journal Topics (2006 Masters) or the Monthly Archive for April.

Instead, I wanted to highlight just some of the many great reader comments over the last few weeks. It is interesting to think that just a few years ago, the tangled connection between technology, design and setup was murky at best for most. And now...

When Ron Kroichik looked at the distance issue and the Masters ball concept, reader Kirk Gill wrote, "Tiger says that putting the brakes on the distance a golf ball will travel would hurt the golf ball making industry. Uh, excuse me. All it would do would be to put pressure on the manufacturers to find other ways besides distance to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Like they did for decades. People play golf. People use golf balls. People either lose or beat up their golf balls to the point that they need to get new ones."

M. Kavanaugh said, "My wife and I have been buying new razor blades for years as well as golf balls, do we really care what the latest Schick will do for a clean close shave? Not really, same with golf balls."

On the story of Phil Mickelson and his two drivers, JPB wrote, "If a player chooses to use one of his 14 clubs on an extra driver - fine. Nobody had major problems with 4 wedges...I think a player should be able to use what he wants within the limit...I don't know how much is new technology and how much is fat laziness and not practicing, but it doesn't surprise me he is trying this. I actually think it is a good idea given the importance of the drive. Better to dump a long iron and carry 2 drivers. I sort of admire Phil for trying it actually."

And Smolmania said: "I would hate for someone to tell me that I can't put 5 wedges in my bag as indicative of a lack of skill. In my view, the configuration of a bag is a question of choices. When you miss as many greens as I do, you need options. . . and I choose wedges."

Mike Clayton previewed the Masters, prompting this from RM, "It's the tree plantings that are the most troubling, and really just plain crazy. Changes to Augusta- tees, bunkers, etc.- always blend in perfectly, but these new trees just do not belong. They don't look right and feel out of place, not to mention they just make the holes claustrophobic, contrary to the strategy and charm of the course. They could always just cut them down, but I have a feeling Hootie would never let his pride take such a hit."

Tiger's pre-Masters press conference talked about design and his love of Royal Melbourne, prompting skannberg to write, "it's amazing tiger loves the sandbelt courses so much, even wants to design like em. why then does he constantly refuse to play 'em every year."

After reading Leonard Shapiro's story on the odd USGA-Augusta National relationship, JM noted, "The smugness is what kills me. It's half Oz and all 'we are above the game,' which is exactly the kind of thinking that goes hand-in-hand with developing "brands" and protecting the unhuman concept that has become the Masters, and what ultimately ends up repelling people from golf. Where is the honest, strategy-based golf competition between the best players in the game, against themselves and a masterpiece of a course, where the fans are treated to unpredictable and thrilling golf?  I will be hard-pressed to explain to my son or my colleagues -- who have no interest in golf for these very reasons, despite my protestations -- that the challenges and rewards of the game are physically and psychically worth my obsession -- and, 'no really,' perhaps theirs, as well."

Regarding the wonderful Amen Corner Live and the announce team of Phil Blackmar and Mike Hulbert, Dan G. noted that, "I was feeling pretty guilty about procrastinating with my school work. Then Bobby Clampett came on and I got right back to work."

And hearing David Feherty's course change-cheerleading, Rick Adams said, "Perhaps David's trying to make up to the lords of CBS for his soapbox comment,"Why is Marv Albert working and Ben Wright isn't?"

During the Masters rain delay, we looked back at the surprising article submitted by reader Michael that revealed Perry Maxwell's planned 1937 changes, prompting reader Hux to observe:  "It appears our dearest Maxwell betrayed Dr. Mackenzie before his blood was cold in the ground. As did Jones. Say it ain't so."

Regarding the final round, there were plenty of opinions. Ned Ludd:  "Wouldn't it be something if they could spend their billions on cloning Alister MacKenzie so HE could make the changes, if any, to the course...or in the alternative, lay down the law regarding equipment. To here Nantz et al. talk about MacKenzie in such prayerful tones when all the bunkers scream Alabama Golf Trail is sad."

Dan G. wrote, "I found Kostis holding up Clark as proof that short-knockers have a chance pretty annoying. But in the interview it seemed to me like Clark felt he was at quite a disadvantage once it rained."

DAW had a different take: "The players hit some good shots that could have led to heroics but they couldn't follow them up with putts. If Couples and Tiger made their eagles, would people be talking about how there was no buzz on the back nine? I think that the field just didn't get it done on Sunday and it's convenient but not accurate to blame it on the course."

And reader Brett:  "It was as boring as a U.S. Open. Guys puking all over themselves. Tons of greens missed. Shoes that needed some real spikes, Rocco Mediate. A 66 on Sunday by Olazabal, the low score of the week. Bangers having a 5 club advantage. Steve is right, on the weekend I went and played golf instead of watching the Masters, no excitement. None."

RM attends the Masters annually and wrote: "I must admit that there was a different feel to it this year. The players definitely had a look of serious concern on their faces at all times. At one point after lunch on Thursday there were only 2 players under par, and only -1. If it weren't for Rocco and Vijay getting hot, it would have been a rough start and the changes would have been the story rather than the golf. Although I think the changes played out better than we thought, they probably got a little lucky, and it might not be long until we get a real US Open type Masters where some undeserving player hangs on for dear life and snags a green jacket with an over par score. And at that point we will really begin to realize just what we're missing.

In the course verdict watch department, Etienne wrote:  "Had the club lengthened the course step by step over the last few years to find the correct balance in combating technology and the design integrity of Jones and Mackenzie, this second cut stuff would not have been necessary. Jones' philosophy of golf (and Augusta) being a second shot game would have held true."

On Kevin Mitchell's blistering column about the role of manufacturers in the game today, J.P. wrote: "Mitchell is saying that golf's history is like the baby being thrown out with the bath water, because the USGA has been over ruled by the manufacturers. For the manufacturers, its been like taking candy from a baby."

The USGA's Distance Myth's talking points were released at Augusta and Oldschool says that the "USGA for whatever reason is now implementing a cover up. Keep trying Walter, but the stats do not support your (myths) opinions."

Reader Michael noted, "Hogan called the tee shot the most important shot in golf...To see what has happened with driving accuracy succumbing to driving distance as being the majority deciding factor in the game today is shameful. All of this for what? To hear the USGA saying that their main mission is the preservation of the game, and in maintaining its history and integrity is heresy."

RGM said: "The USGA is in full cover up mode. Their test was set up for 109 miles per hour, Walter Driver claims the average swing speed is 112, why did they up it to 120? Was it because at 109 the real technological evidence was revealing itself. Ut...Oh! Yes, that's why they did it. It was too evident at 109 with whats happened in the past 4 years. The USGA also changed its testing for COR, another red flag. These changes haven't produced clearer results, but to the contrary have created a clouded, cloaked situation from which the USGA is testing."

And Tour Rep offered this:  "Everything described on this post is 95% accurate. The other 5% I can not verify with certainty but it lends itself to practicality. Knowing what I do, from the week in, week out drill, the ball and driver has certainly ruined golf on the professional level. It's easy for me to say this after 25 plus years in the industry and dealing with the latest equipment yearly. The sport is now dependent on bombing, we build 4 times as many drivers each week in the trailer as compared to sets of irons. Each driver we build consists of every conceivable shaft weight, flex profile, frequency, torque, butt and tip stiffness profile, and believe it or not color. These guys know that distance today means everything, and that's all they think about. Ten years ago the emphasis was on irons, wedges, and putters. I see the difference, which is sad for golf."

On the rumor that Merion is looking good for the 2013 U.S. Open, Smolmania wrote, "Why are we going to have an Open at a course where Tiger, Phil, and the big hitters won't even be able to think about pulling driver out of the bag? Sorry to say, but until something is done about the ball, there's no reason to try to hold our national championship at Merion."

And finally, on the news that Rees Jones had restored Medinah with MacKenzie/Tilly bunkers, DK said, "So Medinah has MacKenzie and Tillinghast bunkers. Does it also have Maxwell greens, Jones Sr. tee boxes, Colt and Alison hollows, Emmet cross bunkers, and Travis chocolate drops? You know just like Bendelow designed it."

Week In Review, March 26-April 1: The Bivens Brand

Another weird week in golf, kicked off by the Sabbatini-Faldo feud and debut of Amy Sabbatini's Spring Collection t's for Tour wives. Faldo took the early lead for 2006's funniest quote in response to Amy's "Keep Up" t-shirt.

Besides the painful fifth major debate, The Players Championship brought attention to the concept of rough and whether it works at all, especially on courses not intended to have tall grass lining the fairways (hint: no well-designed course uses rough as a design ploy). The TPC mess prompted reader Carl to write, "lets face it, the golf ball has taken all of the imagination out of the game, and has taken the imagination out of golf course design. The high quality of different shot selections and the high quality of course design is bending over backwards to accomedate a golf ball."

Tom Kite's comments in Golfweek's Forecaddie prompted the debut of The List, which is a look at recent statements from well known figures in golf on the distance issue.

MacDuff provided us another updated look at a mythical FedEx Cup points race. It's becoming clear that someone like Vijay will win it by playing often and playing well. MacDuff suggest that the Tour consider "putting a cap on the number of events to score, but not weighting upward for those that play fewer events. Base it on your top 20 performances of the year, and winner take all."

Martin Kaufman blasted the Ohio Golf Association's retro ball invitational, prompting reader Hannibal Smith to ask "Why don't they let one of the more talented writers like Brad Klein or John Steinbreder who are more traditional when it comes to the ball issue write an opposing viewpoint?"

And Smolmania noted, "The best players want the ball reigned in, so that talent will prevail over athleticism. Us bunters want it reigned in so that the game played at the highest levels isn't simply irrelevant to the game we play. The only people who don't want these changes are the manufacturers, and people who don't have a clue. . . in my patently 'unbalanced' opinion."

After watching players struggle out of the TPC Sawgrass' rough-on-steroids, I floated the possibility of a player getting seriously injured by such a harvest. That prompted reader RM to question my sanity: "Your imagination is running wild today. Must be Bellsouth week."

Ned Ludd made me feel a lot better by not completely shooting down the possibility: "There are two parts to every lawsuit: liability and damages. Assuming a player like Woods could prove liability ( as in the Tour created a foreseeable risk of injury by implementing such rough ), and that he could survive an incurred risk defense (that he willingly and voluntarily took the swing knowing the probability of injury), IMAGINE the number his lawyers would blackboard and that a jury could award with respect to his damages, especially if the injury had any permanency to it. Even the South Park 'Chewbacca' defense would not carry the day."

Andrew Both wrote this week about the Tour's astounding pension projections. Reader Carl responded that it's "quite interesting that the Tour would be rolling out the big numbers again with regard to retirement, especially with players like Sean [Murphy] questioning the whole process."

Ryan Ballengee chipped away at Tim Finchem's eye-opening new 6-year, $27 million deal. Reader Brett noted, "Now we know why Greg Norman is asking for the minutes to every meeting. There is a lack of accountability involved here. Who is making all the decisions on the Fed Ex Cup? I've read where Paul Azinger said that the membership to his knowledge had never been asked for any input. That would mean that the Commissioner is making all the decisions. Scott are the players working for Commissioner Finchem or is Commissioner Finchem working for the players?"

Reader RThompson wondered, "Is it just the handpicked independents that are setting (staging) Commissioners Finchems contract, salary and benefits, or do the 4 player directors on the 9 member policy board have a say in the Commissioners agreements. If it is only the independents, and Commissioner Finchem has hand picked them, then this would basically be justified as self-dealing."

Golf World's "Big Bang" story on flogging and working-out prompted an interesting discussion on shotmaking between JohnV, Sean Murphy, J.P., Steven T. and Smolmania.

The Australian Open will now be headed by Paul McNamee, who made some Bivens-like comments in his first interview with The Age. But as reader Hux noted, "have a talk with Mike Clayton before judging McNamee. Mike has been pushing for this appointment for years, which is good enough for me. Give him a chance."  Alright, alright, I can't argue with that!

Bill Huffman wrote about a recent speech given by Jim Vernon, another encouraging sign that the USGA is laying the groundwork for doing something about regulating distance.

And finally, LPGA ommissioner Carolyn Bivens' first major and the ensuing coverage has not been pretty.

Doug Ferguson looked at an LPGA major and wasn't impressed. Reader Scott Stearns noted, "you know its a major when you see members hitting balls on the practice tee right next to the players."

Leonard Shapiro of the Washington Post and Peter Yoon of the LA Times devoted significant space to evaluating the Bivens era.  Frank Hannigan weighed in too.

Bivens talked to the media and it wasn't pretty. Her April Fool's Day-worthy comments, while entertaining, also means that there are ramifications for the emerging LPGA Tour. Reader Pete the Luddite noted: "she is singlehandedly setting back the development of the game, women's golf, and dare I say feminism in general with this powderpuff approach."

Augusta here we come...

Week In Review, March 19-25: Fifth of Four Majors Week

Somehow I can't picture Bernard Darwin filing a "fifth major" column if he were (God forbid) forced to cover the Players Championship. Which I guess is my not so subtle way of noting how sad it is that the second annual "fifth major" story watch led to posts here, here, here and here. And just think, next year when they move the Players to May, the inane speculation will start all over again!

Reader Brett asked, "What real "Major" hands out 20 sponsor exemptions? And who do all the sponsor exemptions go to?"

Other Sawgrass talk centered around the impending course overhaul, and thankfully, the installation of so much U.S. Open rough on the course.

Bill Fields in Golf World contrasted the evolution of Sawgrass with Augusta, and became yet another prominent writer to risk a not so friendly Augusta press room greeting.

A flashback of sorts took place, with a look at Ron Whitten's surprising change in stance on the Augusta changes.

John Hawkins blogged about the need to make TPC Sawgrass' 17th hole tougher, prompting me to ask why golf is looking to always make things tougher, while other sports are looking for ways to make their sport better.

Reader Tom Gov set me straight:  "In other sports no one likes to see a one sided blow out. But most spectators like to see two great opponents battling it out on the field. In golf, the only real opponent we have is the course. So as players get better, (whatever the reason) as a spectator, I want to see tougher opponents (in this case the golf course). In basketball the basket wasn't raised and in baseball the bases weren't lengthened. Both opponents just got better and most of the traditions were held in place. In golf, our traditions are being severely challenged by only one of the opponents getting much better."

Reader Josh Hoisington added, "Does anybody remember or more importantly care what Tiger's score was at Augusta 2005? I don't. I do care that I had a great time watching Chris and Tiger battle it out over the back nine, and into the playoff. Heck, I barely even remember the contempt I felt at the changes to the course."

MacDuff kindly shared his latest FedEx Cup points list, and whether you care or not about the Tour's new playoff concept, it raises questions about whether the Tour will install a system that "incentivizes" players to play more often, or one that rewards star power.

Tim Finchem convened the press for a gathering, and I suggested and solicited questions here.  Reader J.P. wanted to ask, "Do you personally own stock in Comcast?"

I dissected the Commissioner's press conference, where many subjects came up, including questions about steroids. Pete the Luddite was surprised by the Tour's weak stance on matter: "Wait until there's a definite problem, the genie's out of the bottle, the integrity of the game is (further) marginalized, the media jumps on the sport as ignoring a problem for too long, and THEN, and only then, maybe possible consider a retrofitted "solution". Apparently, The Commish hasn't watched anything going on with the erosion of baseball's integrity in recent times."

The same Pete shared some fascinating graphs on distance, accuracy and ball striking, and Sean Murphy noted that "the overall driver (thats accuracy and distance combined) the last three years on the PGA Tour did not keep his card."

We looked at SI's recent teachers poll, where teacher Jim Suttie said that the Ohio Golf Association would take individualism out of the game by forcing contestants in an invitational event to try a competition ball.

Smolmania noted that in the limited flight ball event, "The guys who can't bomb it because they aren't capable of swinging the club at 120 mph will have a chance. Yes, they'll still be 40 or 50 yards behind the bombers, but not 100. The bombers will have to hit 5 or 6 irons into par 4s, and might even have to lay up on an occasional long par 5. Oh the horrors."

Don't miss the latest episode in the Sabbatini saga and Nick Faldo's brilliant, early candidate for quote fo the year.

And finally, don't miss Fred Funk's rant on the power game in golf, and how the "little guy" is literally going to be driven out of the game as the shift to certain technologies unfairly rewards taller, stronger players.

Week In Review, March 12-18: Augusta Talk Continues

Alan Campbell wrote about Tim Finchem and the WGC's staying in the U.S., calling the commissioner's conduct "despicable."  But as reader scott pointed out, "Phil Mickelson cant be bothered to skip trick or treating for the richest payday in golf--why do you think he will lift a finger to go to Europe for the Pizza Express WGC Open?"

Paul Azinger made some interesting comments during the Honda telecast, bemoaning how technology is depriving us of seeing real shotmaking and suggesting that there is no going back. But the better comments were on the thread after.  Smolmania wrote: "Roc can take all those little numbers and symbols that fly thru the air in his commercial with Tiger, and create a core that just doesn't fly so far. Will I -- a maybe better than average joe (5 handicap) -- not hit it as far? Absolutely. But neither will Tiger and the other bombers. . . and the game will be better off."

And Josh Hoisington offered this: "The difference between the Longest and Shortest average drivers over the years. As of now, the driving distance leader, Bubba, is averaging 320, Brad Faxon, I guess he's the driving distance loser? Anyway, he's averaging 260. Obviously it's early, but last year the difference was the same at the end of the year: Scott hend 320, Corey Pavin 260. The difference is 60 yards. In 1980, which is as far back as pgatour.com seems to go, Dan Pohl was leading with 275, the shortest hitter was averaging 240, making only a 35 yard difference."

John Hawkins reported in Golf World that it's CBS making the call to keep Gary McCord off the Masters telecast, not Hootie Johnson.  This prompted Frank Hannigan to write another Letter from Saugerties.

MacDuff gave us an updated look at his FedEx Cup points standings, which award points equally from event to event. The result? Playing well and playing a lot are rewarded. Another great discussion broke out after this post.
 
njmike pointed out what could be a nightmare scenario in the FedEx Cup concept: "Can you imagine Tiger winning two majors and nine events and not having enough points to win it? Ranked lower to someone that played in 25+ events- big deal."

And reader J.P. wrote, "the Top players really only play in the larger purse events, where they are payed a lot more than just your average Tour event. If every tournament purse was the same across the board as well as a Fed Ex Cup points structure, I think we would be seeing a totally different group of players being considered the Top Players."

Greg Norman let it be known to Tim Rosaforte at Golf World that he was contemplating a lawsuit to force the PGA Tour to open its books. Sean Murphy shared some of his experiences in a similar quest to Norman's.
And some of Norman's past comments were posted here and here.

The question of whether there is any interest in DVD's of golf events in their original telecast form, with bonus commentary and extras. Several readers offered great suggestions for possible events to release.

John Davis looked at the abysmal start to the Carolyn Bivens era, which now is about to have its first major, with golf's most prominent publication still not reaching an agreement on covering the LPGA Tour. Amazing.

John Huggan brought us up-to-date on the situation at Musselburgh.

And finally, (and I mean finally!), the drastic changes to Augusta National have taken center stage three weeks before the season's first major.

I wrote about the recent remarks of Nicklaus and Palmer, and the past writings of Bobby Jones.

Jack Nicklaus held a press conference and continued to question the design changes. Arnold Palmer tried to back off some of his remarks and also jokingly ducked the golf ball issue with Commissioner Finchem present.

Tiger Woods called the new look Augusta "interesting," his nice way of saying he thinks it stinks.

Ernie Els said the event has become no fun and may be the toughest of the four majors. Reader Steven T. noted, "The Masters is taking on some characteristics of a US Open course setup. Perhaps they will move up the tees on the back 9 on Sunday to create some fun. Perhaps not. Also, Jack Nicklaus must be really ticked off that Fazio got the job to rework AN instead of him."

And reader Jay wrote, "Tying this into the Nickaus in '86 thread, it was way more fun to watch because he was making birdies to roar past the field."

More Els remarks on Augusta and technology were looked at, but maybe the best comments about Augusta came from Mike Weir, who questioned what Bobby Jones would think of changes to his design.

Never has Augusta received so much (constructive) course criticism in a week from so many former champions. Maybe the club will re-think it's approach to the course?

More likely,they'll re-think inviting former champions as members or allowing contestants to play the course before Masters week.