Classic Video: Monkeying Around At The Nedbank

Great stuff from Golf Channel's telecast of the Nedbank Challenge:

Take That Rory: Tiger Created $6 Million More In '12 Sponsor Media Value!

Leave it to Forbes to come up with a beauty. Kurt Badenhausen reports:

Woods generated $18.9 million in media value for his sponsors, Nike and Fuse Science, during U.S. golf telecasts this year, while racking up three PGA Tour victories. Nike alone commanded $18.1 million of the total based on a Repucom formula that calculates time and clarity on the screen of logos, as well as the cost to reach that audience. Woods is unusual in that he is outfitted head to toe in Nike and also uses the equipment of the Beaverton, Ore. sports giant. The Fuse Science logo is only on his golf bag. McIlroy’s sponsors, primarily Jumeirah, Oakley, Titleist, Footjoy and Audemars Piguet, received $12.9 million of value.

So Tiger's got this going for him.

“Tiger’s generally strong, consistent play, combined with him simply getting coverage because he is Tiger Woods, generated tremendous value for his sponsors,” says Repucom executive Peter Laatz.

Ranked behind Woods and McIlroy are Phil Mickelson ($11.8 million), Jim Furyk ($8.5 million) and Louis Oosthuizen ($8.2 million), whose second place finish at the Masters is responsible for 72% of his value.

Oh yeah, I'm feeling really good about these numbers.

(Emergency) State Of The Game Podcast: Anchoring And The Old Course

If ever there were a time for a State of the Game podcast, it's this week as the gang gets together via Skype even though we're all over the planet.

As always you can subscribe via iTunes or listen here:

Buried Lede In The Anchoring Ban Announcement?

Ron Sirak, writing about the announcment of a ban on anchoring putters against the torso:

So for those currently anchoring the long putter, the announcement today created their own version of the Mayan calendar, which some say predicts the word will end Dec. 21 of this year, which is bad news for those currently leading their fantasy football leagues.

And I say there is a 100 percent chance that this ban is not an end but a means to an end, a beginning salvo in a battle by the USGA and the R&A to push back against some of the ways the game has changed in recent years.

And he's right.

They used the opportunity to repeat some of the strongest words on distance to ever come out of St. Andrews, Far Hills or their new de facto headquarters in an Orlando conference room.

Peter Dawson had to quibble with my question referencing Webb Simpson and Adam Scott's past statements and the St. Andrews redo reference.

But then he moved to the distance topic that has created many more problems than anchored putters:

As far as the distance issue is concerned, clearly that is very germane to the future of the game.

Ok, right there. That alone is a big statement from Mr. Dawson. There's more...

It affects size of golf course, amount of land use, cost of play, and there can be no doubt at all that this distance issue has to be at the forefront of our minds at all times.

You'll recall the R&A and the USGA did issue a joint statement of principle ten years ago now saying that if distances crept up further, we would take action.  Distances have actually plateaued since then.

So he reverted to old habits there briefly. But then...

But I think the issues that surround the sustainability issue are coming more and more into play when we consider distance, and both the R&A and the USGA have research projects that are ongoing in order to make sure we are ready to address this at an appropriate time.

The fact that we have chosen to do something about anchored strokes that is a completely separate matter and it would be a mistake to feel that because we have done something about one that we don't care about the other.

And the USGA's Mike Davis then chimed in:

Just to add to that, Peter mentioned [2002], the joint statement of principles, I can assure everybody, that the R&A and USGA have been quite busy on these research projects the last ten years.  And looking forward, we are very concerned about the long‑term health of the game, the sustainability of the game.  We are concerned about water usage.  We are concerned about the cost of the game; time, as Peter mentioned.

So this is something that we are taking very seriously, and certainly we are looking, also, at distance.  We want to quantify if one day there was a need to reduce distance, and we are not suggesting today; that we feel that it's our duty, that it's part of our mission to look at the future of the game.

We want to understand what reduced distance might mean; how much matter would it save?  How much cost would it save?  For those courses that haven't been built yet, how much less land would it mean?  That's important to the future of the game.  We have 33,0000 golf courses in the world right now and we need to protect them.  But furthermore, we need to protect those courses that haven't been built yet.

It sure sounds like they are preparing to present data explaining what a reduced footprint would look like economically. Most of us know if they do that, combined with some shrewd forecasting on future water costs from the USGA Green Section, and their case for some sort of revised overall distance standard may just be easier to make than the anchoring case they presented Wednesday.

Latest #savetheoldcourse Clippings And More Graphic Images

Joining former five time Open Champion and Royal & Ancient Golf Club member Peter Thomson in criticizing the work is Paul Lawrie, the 1999 Open winner and a Scot.

Martin Dempster reports his extensive statements as well as some of the other recent jabs from playing greats, including this from Lawrie:

“I personally feel it should be left alone and, if twenty-under or less wins, then so be it as all links courses are at the mercy of the weather. No matter what the winner scores, he’s still the best player that week.”

Lawrie, who described a new tee built at the 17th for the 2010 Open as looking “out of place”, added: “I personally feel they should be tackling technology and, more importantly, the ball instead of spending fortunes changing courses.”

Luke Donald, the world No. 2 Tweeted that he's not sure he's in favor of changing Old Course features that survived several hundred years.

Lorne Rubenstein was more restrained than others but certainly clear about what he feels is driving the course changes.

Change the rules for equipment. Change the golf ball. Slow down greens. (None of this will happen, though). But don’t change the Old Course, at least not without input from more people who care. And many do.

Joe Passov sets the bar disturbingly low, suggesting that changing the Old Course is no big deal and not fazing him "one bit" because they've always changed the Old Course. Though that's a tough case to make post-1920 other than the new tees prior to 2010. And also a stretch considering that the people making the change could have regulated equipment so that this would not be necessary.

That's because for all of its tradition and role as the most hallowed ground in the sport, the Old Course is also all about change. It has witnessed -- and mostly embraced -- hundreds of modifications over the past several centuries. The latest refinements will ultimately make little difference in how the Old Course at St. Andrews is played and enjoyed.

Obviously I can't agree with a statement like that when greenside bunkers are going to be added to create inaccessible hole locations to get Open scores up. Those bunkers will take away the ground game or a bailout for the everyday golfer. But the larger question I'd ask those like Passov chalking these changes up to the Old Course's normal progress: if this is just a typical Old Course update, why was it done in secret?

Reader Mark points out that in 2009 the Links Trust announced "adaptations" to the Jubilee Course. When this took place, they made head greenkeeper Gordon Moir available for meetings on four separate days and displayed the plans from June 8-22 in the Links Clubhouse. This did not happen in the case of the Old Course, the most revered and beloved course on the planet, the bible of golf design. Either it was an oversight of epic proportions or someone knew that these changes went way beyond the last significant nips and tucks the course experienced prior to the 1920s. You can view a PDF of the Jubilee campaign here.

Golf Channel's Morning Drive had Jack Nicklaus on to react to the anchoring ban, but he was also asked about the state of the game (taking care of the ball would help) and the Old Course (nothing wrong with keeping it up with modern times.)

 

Jim Colton tweeted a blow up shot by Graylin Loomis of the amazing scene of a 7th fairway depression getting filled in by an army of workers who were also offering us a punchline contest: how many men does it take to fill in a feature that had been around for several centuries until today?

Generations saw fit to leave this depression. Today's caretakers did not. It must be a gift to know what Old Tom and Allan Robertson and all of the other Old Course caretakers did not know!

Loomis, on the Living as a Links Golfer blog, posted more images here showing the work in process. Warning, these images are explicit and may cause recurring nightmares if you have a golfing soul. Oh, and good luck finding the architects in the photos. Hawtree no where to be seen and Peter Dawson was in Orlando. Nothing like that hand-on supervision for the Old Course account.