When you come to think of it that is the secret of most of the great holes all over the world. They all have some kind of a twist. C.B. MACDONALD
Bob Harig advocates a FedEx Cup points system similar to the one that MacDuff has kindly been compiling and sharing with us. Harig says a system with equal points for all events, with a few more for the majors, would have the same impact that Nascar's Nextel setup has: stars playing more often.
So the mystery remains, why the Tour will take until July to figure this out?
Dan O'Neill reports that Bellerive, that bastion of scintillating 60's golf architecture, will likely host the 2009 Western Open.
Doug Ferguson deftly handles the difficult subject of Earl Woods' health and Tiger's understandably distracted game.
The Toronto Sun's Ken Fidlin won't be getting a First Tee brick in his name from Tim Finchem after this column, which looks at the dreadful date given to the Canadian Open and other PGA Tour activities of late.
Stopped taking Ambien? Well, I have just the organic cure for your sleep disorder.
But first, Commissioner, congratulations on the new 6-year deal. That's your 6-year deal at $4.5 million per year.
And now, the reason you get the big bucks. The floor is yours. Let's get the inevitable fifth major question out of the way:
Stature is something that we don't determine, others determine. At some point along the way in the '50s, stature meant calling The Masters a major. At someplace along the way earlier than that, the Western, which had been called a major, wasn't called a major anymore. Sometime around 1960 when Arnold Palmer wins at St. Andrews and the modern Grand Slam was sort of inaugurated, people sort of started talking about the British Open as a major, although it wasn't until the 1990s that we recognized the British Open as official money on this Tour and took steps to recognize it greater, even though it was clearly recognized as a major. So these things move around.
The British Open sort of was not a major until they sort of recognized it in the 1990s by sort of adding it to the money list. Take that Old Tom!
We were watching a film last [night] at the Past Champions Dinner about the shotmaking that these champions have conducted over the years, and I continue to believe that stature also has to do with people growing up watching things.
Whoa! A Champions Dinner. How original. What's next, azaleas, a champions locker room, a par-3 tournament?
And when a player like J.B. Holmes was 13 watching Freddie Couples make eagle at 16, and that generation grows up, I suspect that that will also impact on the stature of The Players. Where that leads, at least at this point, I'm not in a position to predict.
For those of us who can't remember one Players from another, I'm glad he mentioned how old J.B. was. The 1996 Players? Oh right...Freddie made eagle. I remember it like it was 1996.
Ah, now the fun begins.
Q. Is it your sense on TOUR that there's a feeling among players of helping rebuild the city's efforts by participating in this year's tournament (in New Orleans)?
TIM FINCHEM: There were two things we were focused on there. One was trying our best to be able to play when a lot of other sports, for whatever reasons, losing their stadiums, were not going to be in a position to play.
But then, secondly, we started to focus on the opportunity to tell a positive story through the tournament about the future of what's going to happen in New Orleans, and that's why we moved our Commissioner's Cup early in the week, which is the CEOs of 50 companies that do business with us, major companies, and we will do a half a day. We will do a half a day briefing is that right?
BOB COMBS: Yeah.
See, that's why Bob gets the big bucks.
TIM FINCHEM: I have to get up to speed.
Oops. Interrupted too soon.
We do a half day briefing with state and local folks so that these companies can understand the vibrancy of what's happening in New Orleans and what the upside is, instead of what we see in the newspaper all the time, whether the dam has really been fixed and isn't it a shame how the Federal Government bungled dealing with it. You don't really see the activity that's going on.
See, it's that liberal, Eastern media elite focusing on the negative. That's what's ruining America!
Oh, and not to be picky or anything Mr. Commissioner, but they were levees, not dams. Sorry, continue...
We want, through that briefing, and have Rudy Giuliani as our guest speaker for that, seminar if you will, to talk about what can happen. And then on the telecast that week, we will sort of tell that story. And so we want it to be an upbeat, positive message, and we're delighted to be able to participate in that.
Q. But do you feel a sense that the players by their participation feel that they can help rebuild or help the efforts of the City of New Orleans?
TIM FINCHEM: I think so. The quality of the event will also send the right message, too, that business as usual is returning to New Orleans. We're all worried about the tourism side of the equation in New Orleans, and not just the infrastructure getting rebuilt. That tourism needs to come back and be able to demonstrate we've got good quality golf facilities through the golf tournament, which is a big reason we have the tournament there anyways, is an important message as well.
See, it's really all about money telling that positive story.
Hey, time for a question similar to one suggested on this site:
Q. This course by modern Tour standards is not very long as Fred Funk proved last year, and this tournament has a history that you don't have to be a bomber to win here. Why hasn't this tournament followed the trend of extending courses to extreme length?
TIM FINCHEM: Well, I'd say the fundamental reason is that we recognize that the fans like watching this field play this golf course. To me that's the fundamental. And you have to be sensitive to that as you look at, you know, making this change or that change or where the ball is going or the fact now that we may have firmer, faster conditions. And so we have been we have been, I would say, knowledgeably and aggressively reticent, if you will, to make those kind of changes. That's the number one thing.
Knowledgeably and aggressively reticent. Wow, that could be the title of someone's biography!
The second thing is, I think we do like the notion that we have the deepest field in the game from A to Z, and virtually every one of those players can win. We would not want to move drastically away from that.
Craig Perks agrees.
Having said that, we have been looking at changes for a number of years, and we have made a few changes. I mean, we've moved a few tees over the years. But when we move a tee, we're not moving a tee because we're exasperated that a player is hitting a 7 iron versus a 5 iron.
Ouch, take that Hootie!
The other thing is that we don't want another answer to your question, frankly we're not excited about changes in the golf course being the story at any point in time. We want the golf course and the history of the golf course to be the story and not that myself or some group of people or some group of players got together and decided that it was a golf course that needed to be significantly changed. We don't see that.
Hootie, Hootie, Hootie. Even the Commish is saying you've gone too far and made it all about you. Wish I could be there when you two have your annual Masters stop and chat.
Q. The new schedule in 2007, have you given any thought to the introduction of a drug testing regime, and if not, why not?
TIM FINCHEM: Have I given any thought to?
Q. The introduction of a drug testing regime on the PGA TOUR, and if not, why not?
TIM FINCHEM: We have given a lot of thought to drugs.
Cialis, Levitra, Viagra. You know, potential tournament sponsors. Oops, sorry...
You can't not think about drugs with what is going on in today's sports. Our policies currently are if you're talking about steroids as an example, steroids are an illegal drug. I have authority of my board to require a test of any player who I have reason to believe or our team has reason to believe is using illegal steroids.
We are not opting for and by the way, I have no material information that that is the case with any player. We see no reason to jump into the testing arena at this point without having any credible information that we have issues.
In golf, a player is charged with following the rules. He can't kick his ball in the rough, and he can't take steroids. We rely on the players to call rules on themselves, and if you look at our Tour over the years, many players have, to their significant financial detriment. That's the culture of the sport.
Having said all of that, if, if, if we were to develop any basis upon which it was reasonable to assume that we had widespread steroid use or steroid use of any significance, we would not hesitate to engage, but it would not be a program that you and the public would look at and say, well, this is sort of a halfway program. It would be a program that would determine for sure that we did not have a problem.
If, if, if...speaking of if's, the Commissioner was asked about Fed Ex points...
I think that two things will happen. I think you will see some players play more in the base season. I think the players who have historically played in the fall will play in the fall. I think we'll see probably less European players in the fall because some of their bigger events are going to move back into the fall in Europe, and THE TOUR Championship isn't there to pull them back.
Other than that, I think the fall will probably be as good as it's been. There may be some more starts in that base season; I suspect there will be.
The fall has been so as "good as it's been," that it's being totally revamped and stuck behind the "base season."
Q. Can I just follow up on a very provincial question? Do I take it to understand that Washington is now in danger of not having a PGA TOUR event in 2007?
TIM FINCHEM: I wouldn't call it in danger. Every tournament has to have a sponsor, and we went through the period of talking to Booz Allen and we had very positive discussions with Booz Allen. We maintained a very solid relationship with them there and I think it was excellent of them to offer and commit, actually, to be a million dollar supporting sponsor.
Solid relationship? Can you imagine what the no-so-solid relationships are like?
Now we have to arrange for a title sponsor position. I have every reason to believe we will do that, but until it's done, it's not done.
Got that?
Until it's done, it's not done.
Actually, that was a special coded message to Bob Combs. Translation: these questions are veering coterminously toward a trajectory I find platform unfriendly.
BOB COMBS: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
TIM FINCHEM: Thank you.
No really, thank you.
Reuters ran with a condensced version of the Fred Funk's comments at the Players. But if you have the time, it's worth reading exactly what he said:
Q. We've seen so much of a tug o'war going on in the game about the power game and bombs away versus skill and precision. Do you feel like it's evolved to a point where power is going to be a requisite skill?
FRED FUNK: Yeah, I feel bad right now. My son loves the game of golf. He's a little guy. He's obviously not going to be physically very big. Not that little guys don't hit the ball a long way, but most little guys don't hit the ball a long way. There's always the exception.
I don't feel with where the game has gone that he will ever have a chance to play on the PGA Tour because he doesn't hit the ball far enough. The kids coming up now are hitting the ball miles. With today's equipment, you just have to it's so forgiving, the driver, I don't think it's the driver so much that's allowing you to hit it a long way; it's the more golf swing givability of the driver that allows you to swing at it. If you're blessed with that swing speed, the ball takes off for you and doesn't come down. Guys are flying it 330, 340 yards right now, which is a joke. It's made designing golf courses a nightmare. It's changed the whole philosophy of the game.
I met with [Arnold] Palmer's group a couple weeks ago, and talking to them about how they design a golf course that's fair for a guy that can hit it 330 and a guy that hits it 270 and where they have to place their corners and place the bunkers and everything else. You can't make it fair.
I really believe, and I know I'm one of the short guys barking with the guys hitting it a long way, so it doesn't get much attention; he's just jealous that he doesn't hit it that far. I truly believe if you're blessed with that kind of ability that you get the benefit of the golf ball, you don't need as much talent as the old players did because you can hit it so far. Just bomb it over all the trouble and you have a wedge or 9 iron into the green, and you're going to hit a lot of greens. I don't care how deep the rough is. And they're strong already, they're going to get it on the green out of the rough, or somewhere around it. I just don't see the skill level, other than just clubhead speed being a big factor in the future.
Q. Some people argue it would be a good thing to have bigger, better athletes, maybe the next wave you'll see a Tour full of 6'4", 240-pounders.
FRED FUNK: That's naturally going to happen because for one, the game of golf has become a great game to play as a kid. Now it's looked upon as a sport; I blame Tiger Woods for it because he's made the game cool. It's a cool game to play as a kid.
The kids are seeing the money we're playing for, they're seeing the personalities we have out here, especially with well, when Tiger came out and was No. 1, but right now our rookie class with Camilo [Villegas] and J. B. Holmes and Bubba [Watson] and numerous others, but those three guys are remarkable guys, unbelievable talent. They hit the ball miles, and they see that, and how can a kid that has a lot of athletic ability and he's fortunate enough to get introduced to the game of golf and doesn't pursue it? He ends up with a linebacker's body and he's playing golf. It's going to happen.
And why it's going to happen it is because it's a cool sport and we're going to have more and more kids playing it at a young age and they're going to develop into some big kids and they're going to be really powerful players. The ball already goes a long way, so the sky is the limit for how far the ball may go in the future with the future golfer.
But it's sad because I think they've lost control of the game. I'll swear to that. I mean, I'll argue that until nobody can prove me different. I'll argue that with every USGA guy that tests every equipment and everything else. They can throw the ShotLink stats out, they can throw everything at me and they cannot change my mind on that. I'm just adamant about the way the game has gone really since 2002, since this last generation of golf ball.
All they really have to do, they don't have to do anything, bring one golf ball back that's talked about or bring the golf ball back, just go back to the golf ball we had before this last change, and it would narrow down that gap between the long and the short.
I don't mind being the shortest guy. I never minded being one of the shortest guys on Tour and competing with a guy that could on the stats he was 295, 300, but when you have guys at 320, 330, 335, I mean, those guys that are averaging that can actually hit it 350; that's a long way. You can't beat that on a lot of golf courses now, and the design guys have no idea what to do.
So they do one thing, they jack the tees back and they don't change the greens. They say, okay, we've got to jack the tees back to protect the golf course from the long guys. You just took all the short guys completely out of it, so now all the long guys are up at the top, unless you have a great putting week, chipping week. I'll get in trouble for that, but that's all right.
Q. I hate to stop you. You skipped the Zurich Classic [in New Orleans] last year, and I understand you're going back this year. How much did the impact of [Hurricane] Katrina have on your decision?
Hey, at least he was an admitted Rally Killer.
Even Ponte Vedra's very own Doug Ferguson, himself guilty of his share of fifth major stories, sounds like he's had enough of the fith major talk, even as he admits that it'll only get worse with next year's move to May.
Some of the great lines...
What keeps The Players Championship from being a major is the very organization that longs for it to be one.
The majors are run by four groups — Augusta National, the USGA, the Royal & Ancient and the PGA of America. Each run one tournament a year with a full field of golf's best players. The Players Championship, on the other hand, is among 41 events run by the PGA Tour. Ultimately, it's a PGA Tour event in a prom dress.
"They can dress it up as much as they want, but it's a regular event with a big purse," Toms said when asked to compare this with the majors. "It's a great event. It's the best one we have."
And the fact this "fifth major" discussion has become a rite of spring speaks to the quality. No other tournament gets consideration as a fifth major.
Still, the more people talk about it, the more it seems like the PGA Tour is forcing the issue.
"If you have to sell it as a major, then it's not a major," Kevin Sutherland said. "It's still a great, great tournament."
Sluman is responsible for the defining statement on the status of The Players Championship as a major when he said three years ago, "When you go Denny's and order the Grand Slam breakfast, they don't give you five things, do they? They give you four."
Steve Elling talks to Arnold Palmer about possible changes to Bay Hill in response to modern day driving distances, something that first came up in his Sunday NBC interview.
Also on Palmer's might-do list is an overhaul of the sixth hole, a par-5 that curls like a semicircle around a large lake. After watching a couple of players blow 300-yard drives across the pond and hit short-iron approaches into the 558-yard hole, he wants to move the green back a few yards. "I think he'll mess that hole up if he does," Retief Goosen said. "I don't think he should mess with 6 -- it's a great hole as it is. It's all about excitement and going for that green [in two] and you'd see more guys laying up."And this...
His two-year experiment with longer rough seems to have been a mixed bag. By forcing long hitters to play from the fairway, he placed a bigger value on shotmaking. But he also widened the number of potential winners.
Sunday, Palmer wasn't necessarily buying the argument that he had opened the door for pack of middle-tier players at the expense of the big boys like Woods, Vijay Singh and Ernie Els -- all long hitters with lengthy pedigrees at the course. Nor did he necessarily agree that he had retreated to a setup that could produce more winners such as Paul Goydos and Andrew Magee, journeymen who each claimed their lone and biggest tour titles, respectively, at Bay Hill.
If Palmer reins in the bashers, on balance, he likely will have to accept a few middle-tier players as winners.
"You are saying that, I'm not saying that," Palmer said when the notion was posed. "I can't answer that. I don't know. I honestly thought that Tiger would do well [he finished 20th], that this would be a good week for him."
John Hawkins' latest blog entry is a bit head scratcher. He says the 17th at TPC Sawgrass isn't hard enough because it's a "stock pitching wedge" and that: "it’s probably too easy at least one round each year, sometimes two. Changing the hole without a compromise of its character would raise blood pressures even more, which is precisely what the hole was meant to do."
Help me here. I can't think of another sport where people want to see it made tougher, even at the expense of entertainment. Football? Hockey? Baseball?
When those sports have been perceived as off-kilter, less interesting or compromised by changes in equipment, they went in search of ways to make the sport better and more interesting.
Hawkins brings up good points in the story about altering the angles of attack to add interest, but I'm not sure if they are for the reasons that say, Bobby Jones would like to have seen variety on a day-to-day basis (to better test the player). They seem to be ideas designed to raise scoring averages.
Since equipment has made it easier for the top players, many expect courses to keep up or inflict torture because the players have it easier. I guess I just will never understand the admiration for trainwreck golf that has overtaken the game. Especially when it would be a lot easier to change the ball.
A few respected players say #17 is hard enough. From Ron Whitten's excellent story last year on the evolution of the TPC:
"It's a great finish," says [Brad] Faxon. "As a player, there aren't many times when you get more nervous than hitting that second shot into 16, hitting to that island green on 17 and hitting that tee shot on 18."
And, Steve Elkington:
"At Augusta, once you get past 15 and 16, you feel it's over. Not at TPC at Sawgrass. I once stood on the 17th tee with a six-shot lead and I was still worried about getting it across the water. I know if I put one in the drink, I might put 10 in. It's one of those feelings."
With stories mentioning the restoration of "shot values" (whatever they are) to the TPC Sawgrass when the "layer of Gore Tex" is installed this summer, I could not help but wonder if the changes will mean the Tour will take down the US Open style rough. (See the recommended questions for Commissioner Finchem.)
Last year, Tom Kite made a strong case for the rough stripping the course of its character and even difficulty in Ron Whitten's Golf World cover story:
"It was probably as strategic a golf course as maybe we've ever seen," he says. "It reminded me a lot of St. Andrews in that there were so many options and ways to play it. It was designed to play firm and fast, and you knew you were going to have to play some creative shots. But now it's like the U.S. Open, with lots of deep rough, trees totally out of play. Nobody hits it into the trees anymore. Nobody ever misses a green by more than two or three yards anymore, because it doesn't roll anywhere, it just hits that wall of rough."
The problem is that they overseed the course in winter, says Paul Azinger. "Whenever you overseed in Florida, you have to water it to keep it alive, and that makes everything softer and easier," says Azinger. "I'm not suggesting that it's easy. I love the course, but it's not what it was, not what Pete Dye intended it to be. It's just not that hard anymore."
Why do I have the funny feeling the rough will not go?
In the March 20th Sports Illustrated, the "Top 100 Teachers Poll" looks like this:
The Ohio Golf Association will run the Champions Tournament (Aug 21-23), in which all the players must use the same low-compression ball.
Good idea........41%
Bad idea..........59%
Now, considering how many of the Top 100 teachers are likely aligned with manufacturers, I was actually surprised as many as 41% said it was a good idea.
With the poll was this quote from Jim Suttie, a teacher at Cog Hill:
Besides the fact that the event is totally optional and players know what they are getting into when they enter, consider what Suttie is saying: not every ball fits everybody's swing."Ridiculous! One ball doesn't fit everybody's swing, so it'll take individualism out of the game."
Which is true. We've seen players swinging over 115 mph get an enormous turbo boost from today's ball-driver combination, as fitted on a launch monitor.
It would seem that equipment is actually taking individualism out of the game by favoring certain players, and that the Ohio Golf Association is actually trying to level the playing field again. No?
Thanks to reader Pete the Luddite for these graphs from the PGA TOUR's 2005 statistics on money leaders, driving accuracy, driving distance, and ball striking. He writes:
Distance v. Accuracy (click to enlarge) The graphs show, not surprisingly, that there is a strong link between distance and accuracy. The long hitters rank very low in accuracy and the opposite holds true for the accurate drivers - they're short off the tee.The best examples are the two extremes, Tiger Woods (Distance -2nd, Accuracy - 188st) and Fred Funk (Distance - 197th, Accuracy - 2nd). When you graph up the data for the Top 25 Money Leaders for 2005 (I had to pick a subset), you see that only 3 players in the Top 25 for money rank in the Top 100 for both distance and accuracy.
Graphing distance vs. ball striking shows that the long hitters who win the money also know how to use their wedges.
Distance v. Ball Striking (click to enlarge)Graphing accuracy vs. ball striking shows that the short hitters who win the money also have good iron games.Yes, the overall picture is that Grip It and Rip It is a fact - accuracy doesn't matter if you can use your wedges.
Accuracy v. Ball StrikingBut I don't think the war is lost yet. 10 of the Top 25 Money Leaders for the year were in the bottom 100 for distance, but are still up there with the bombers.
PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem is convening the scribblers Wednesday for his annual state of the The Players Championship news conference. Knowing a few of the attendees are regular readers and assuming they make it to the press center by 9 am, I thought I'd offer a few questions for consideration.
And feel free to join in with your questions in the comments section.
MacDuff has provided us with the highest point averagers in his mythical FedEx Cup points race. One x indicates four cuts made, two xx indicates only three cuts made. The table makes no account for cuts missed.
T. Woods 1921.09 x
Toms 1751.56
Donald 1621.87
Gf. Ogilvy 1564.58
Sabbatini 1555.95
Triplett 1525 xx
Mickelson 1489.06
A.Scott 1458.33 xx
Singh 1438.83
Weir 1431.87
Glover 1407.73
Pernice 1404.16
Furyk 1390.97
Olazabal 1362.5 x
Harrington 1350 xx
Oberholser 1347.5
Jerry Kelly 1331.25 x
Garcia 1284.37 x
C.Campbell 1271.87
Estes 1258.33 xx
J.Byrd 1250 xx
DiMarco 1246.09 x
Lehman 1222.91
Appleby 1205.55
Goosen 1195.83 xx
Rose 1193.33
JB Holmes 1189.16
F. Jacobson 1170.83 xx
JJ Henry 1162.5 xx
Pampling 1158.5
Senden 1156.25 x
Love III 1152.5
M. Wilson 1147.5 x
Westwood 1109.37 x
I reposted the March 13 list from MacDuff, and have since corrected it below. Sorry for the confusion!
Geoff Shackelford is a Senior Writer for Golfweek magazine, a weekly contributor to Golf Channel's Morning
Copyright © 2022, Geoff Shackelford. All rights reserved.
