Jenkins: How much longer and tighter can courses get?

Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post (reg req.) looks at Baltusrol and wonders what's becoming of major championship setups.

Woods's struggle at Baltusrol begs a question, and it's a question that governing bodies of golf have avoided thus far, but which they are going to have to face head on at some point soon. How long can they continue to protect golf courses against burgeoning technology? It's an issue that Woods has helped to force, with his length and ability to make a world-class course look like miniature golf. More and more, courses are gimmicked-up in an attempt to preserve par and control scoring. Even Augusta National is adding 155 yards to its length.

Some courses, according to Woods, have become so tricked up that they resemble "elephant burial grounds." But at a certain point, we are going to run out of ways to manipulate the acreage. What then? How much longer and tighter can courses become without completely distorting them, and the basic values of golf? The most sensible solution is to impose limits on technology, or to use a softer covered, standardized ball that won't travel as far. So far, the ruling bodies have declined to look at such solutions, because it would mean two different standards.

The equipment companies say they don't want pros playing one game, and amateurs playing another. But the reality is that we're already doing that now. How many amateurs can play a 650-yard par 5? When we gin up a tournament venue so dramatically, make it as brutal as it can be for one week, we create another standard. Isn't it easier to control the balls and clubs, than to stretch courses or distort them beyond recognition, until virtually half the field is eliminated on the first tee? Baltusrol is playing fairly -- barely.

Woods's opening round was the fault of his own errant swings. But we're seeing a suggestion here of what happens when the landscape is continually manipulated. Make a course too long, and you eliminate shorter ball strikers. Make it too narrow, and it becomes leveling and the ability of a Woods is totally negated. Either way, it neutralizes skill level -- which is exactly the opposite of what tournament golf should do.

Jenkins raises a question I hope to someday a governing body will contemplate: at what point is a fairway too narrow? Is it 20 yards? 15? 10? The width of a ball?

New Look, New Features

Yes, I've officially entered the blogosphere.

Please bear with me as I try to adjust to the new look and figure out how to publish the archive of past posts (if possible). This should allow for posting more often and for those wired into the whole RSS thing to be notified of posts.

You'll notice now that there's a comments section after posts. This could prove useful and interesting assuming the comments will be posted to add insights to stories posted, or to offer additional links, or to correct my mistakes. Or it could require registration, monitoring, etc... Hopefully not.

Thanks for your patience and thanks for checking in. And feel free to comment below on the new format.

Friday PGA Reads

Well I stayed awake until 3 est time. But the ING ads are back, the fog rolled in, and I just had to lie down. Maybe tomorrows appearance by Charles Barkley will liven things up. Anyway, the post round coverage was thankfully more interesting than the telecast.

Golfonline's Cameron Morfit has some observations and notes. AP's Jim Litke looks at the long hitters in round 1, with some interesting anecdotes. Bill Pennington in the NY Times looks at the 17th and how players long and short handled it during round 1. Here's Tiger's post round1 press conference. I liked him a lot better when rounds like this meant blowing off press.

Golfweek's Jeff Rude looks at the how life and golf have changed since the last time a major was held at Baltusrol.  Jim McCabe in the Boston Globe offers an in depth and fascinating look at The Country Club (where they were supposed to be playing this week), the PGA and big time golf venues. He notes that "Baltusrol members won't see the Upper Course for the rest of the year; Winged Foot members are already braced to lose one of their courses for more than a year, just to host the 2006 US Open."

McCabe's column also writes about 2005 PGA Distinguished Service Award winner Wally Uihlein, and the normally evenhanded Globe writer fawns:

A historian, a visionary, and a voice of reason, Uihlein is a point man for manufacturers who are so often attacked on topics involving equipment. To say that Uihlein is a leader in the golf industry is akin to saying Tiger Woods is a pretty good player. A historian, a visionary, and a voice of reason, Uihlein is a point man for manufacturers who are so often attacked on topics involving equipment. The products under the Acushnet umbrella -- Titleist, FootJoy, Cobra, Pinnacle -- are of the highest quality, but it's Uihlein's relentless devotion to the company that sets a shining example. In the world of golf, there are more high-profile names, but no one has a better feel for the game than Uihlein.

Tim Cronin previews the Walker Cup. The GCSAA offers its "Divot Mix" that includes a leadstory on a new $350 lost ball finder. It comes with a dozen balls, additional balls are $40 a dozen. It also links to this Baltusrol maintenance blog.

Here's the GCSAA fact sheet on Chicago Golf Club, host of the Walker Cup.  And finally, The New York Times enters the Sean O'Hair story arena. Writer Diane Lacey Allen manages to make Marc O'Hair sound like a victim, which I didn't think was possible.

Thursday PGA Reads

Had trouble sleeping lately? I have just the cure for you: Wednesday’s State of the PGA press conference transcript.

Q. What is the status of the search for Jim's successor and when might we expect an announcement on that?

ROGER WARREN: I anticipated that question. [Wow, bet Roger’s one heck of a poker player!] We are still in the search process for a CEO. As we have talked about from the beginning, we always intended to try to have a target of our annual meeting this year in November to have that person selected. The search process is ongoing. We would still use that as a target time, and as we get to the point that we are ready to announce our CEO, we will make that announcement.

If you don't want to read the player transcripts, here's a decent summary of some player comments leading into the PGA. But if you do read a transcript, Jack Nicklaus's is the most entertaining. The same rally killer from yesterday gets a big break when Jack brings up Bobby Jones. But he also has some interesting things to say about a big swing change in his career and the notion of smaller players not having an opportunity in the future because of changes in the game.

Colin Montgomerie reveals that he'll never become a flogger, which is why he probably won't win a major.

Q. Is that somewhat by design? Could you get another 20 yards if you wanted to through some combination, or you don't do it because you don't want to sacrifice accuracy?

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: Well, this is the next thing. You know, do I, do I want to hit the ball 20 yards further in the rough, or do I want to be 20 yards back in the fairway? Well, I'll take 20 yards back in the fairway every day. Every day.

And add Colin to the list of liberal technophobes.

Q. Enough with the feathers, let's go to something smaller. Jack Nicklaus was in here awhile ago talking about the technology, and he said the main problem might be in the golf ball, that it might have to be scaled back. Do you agree with that? Would you be in favor of that?

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: Totally. I've said that for years; our technology is 20 percent the club and 80 percent the ball. Totally.

Here’s an Indy Star article on Donald Trump's ambitions to get a USGA event at Trump National Bedminster. It includes a comment from Marty Parkes but no mention that Trump has reportedly hired a USGA staffer as a consultant.

Tom Sposta in the USA Today offers an extensive look at the course lengthening trend along with its impact on shorter hitters.

"There's a lack of imagination when they're updating courses," says Lee Janzen. "You could come in and just move the bunkers in 5 or 6 yards on every hole, turn the holes a little bit here and there, so guys have to be more accurate off the tee," Janzen says. "Dig out the bunkers a little deeper. Add a little penalty. If there's a penalty out there that guys can see, then they'll play a safer shot, which leaves them harder approach shots and longer putts. That will bring scores up."

Ugh.  Also in the USA Today, Jerry Potterwrites about Jack Nicklaus's design career. Nicklaus says he's far more willing to take on projects with other designers now because he wants to learn from others a Signature Design, for $2.5 million, or the expertise of others for $500,000. The Golf Channel details their Walker Cup coverage plans.

And finally, the great news we’ve all been waiting for, Rees Jones is going to visit Cog Hill. Ed Sherman has the details under "He's Coming."

"He" was on The Golf Channel and noted that Baltusrol was a Trent Jones-Rees bunker and tee design with Tillinghast greens. No argument here!

And They Wonder Why The Players...

…don’t like coming to the press tent. One thing is clear if you subject yourself to Tuesday’s pre-PGA press conference transcripts. Someone was working on a story about the 17th hole. And someone was using the PGA to write a Merion-Bobby Jones-Grand Slam preview piece. Still, there were a few moments.

Here's the transcript with Mike Small, national Club Pro champion. His reward for winning? A pairing with Ben Crane. And amazingly, no one asked him about it.  Phil Mickelson was asked about his And there was this gem:

Q. Obviously both Pinehurst and St. Andrews are very unique setups in major championships. How much a function of those setups do you think it is that the top four or five guys weren't all right there at these majors do we have to look at those setups and how unique those courses are in looking at big picture of the Big Five?

PHIL MICKELSON: I don't know. I think that I wouldn't say that. I think that even though well, I think that the setup can play a factor, but the players playing the best should come out on top each week regardless of the setup. Everybody is playing the same course. Unless you have a ridiculous circumstance like we saw, I believe it was 2002 at Muirfield on Saturday where the leaders just got hammered with 40 mile an hour winds and rain and were shooting in the 80s, unless something like that happens, the best players, regardless of who they are, should come out on top and regardless of the setup.

And Sergio got to relive a moment similar to one of those SI Golf Plus cartoons where the press only asks about Tiger, though Sergio wasn’t asked about Michelle Wie.

Q. Do you think Tiger is back to where he was in 2000, and is it good or bad for golf when he's the dominating player?

SERGIO GARCIA: Excuse me?

Q. Do you think Tiger is back to where he was in 2000, and is it good or bad for golf when he's the dominant player?

SERGIO GARCIA: 2000? 2000 was Sahalee Valhalla. He's not back at where he was in 2000 for sure; he's playing well, I don't know, he's got his problems and I've got my problems and we'll try to work those out. But I'm looking forward to this week. I think it's going to be very exciting and hopefully I can get it going and give myself a chance, so that will be good.

Then there was Tiger's turn to face the scribblers. Here’s a beautiful exchange:

Q. When it comes to what you keep in your bag, are you a guy that likes to tinker with loft and lie and swing weight and things like that, and if you do, what kind of thinking goes into those decisions?

TIGER WOODS: To be honest with you, my lofts, my lie, my length on my irons haven't changed since I was 14 years old. So to answer your question, no.

Q. Why not?

TIGER WOODS: Why? Because they have worked (smiling). I've won a lot of tournaments since I was 14. I'm not going to change. But I have changed my 3 wood obviously and my driver over the years and trying to keep up with everybody off the tees, but my irons are still very weak compared to today's standards. They are the standards back in the 60s. People have that so called gap wedge. Well, my pitching wedge is like 51 degrees. My 9 iron is like 45, and that's like most people's gap wedges. A lot of the guys' pitching wedge is like my 9 irons, so I play with very weak lofts, but they have worked so far.

Here's Tiger endorsing Tigerball/flogging. Note the last line.

Q. We've seen a lengthening of major tournament courses the last few years. Is moving the tee boxes back an answer, and do you see this continuing and where do you see this heading?

TIGER WOODS: I don't see why it won't stop, because obviously the golf balls are only going to get faster and longer. Guys are going to get bigger and stronger. Agronomy helps, too, as well. If you get the fairways hard and fast, it's amazing how much shorter a golf course can play. We played Pinehurst this year and we thought it was a very short golf course, and it's not. It was playing close to 7,300 yards, which we thought was short because the golf course was fast. If you get it fast and hard, you can make the golf courses ridiculously long, because they don't play long. This week is different. Obviously the fairway is very soft and making ballmarks on every tee shot, even with drivers.

I don't see why they won't continue making the golf courses longer, just because guys are going to continue to hit it further, and it's just kind of the nature of the game until they put there's a speed limit on the faces and on the balls, but we seem to every year find something a little bit faster and a little bit longer. Granted, guys are giving up a lot on the greens by going to harder balls to hit it further, but that's how the game has changed. It's not relying upon spin around the greens anymore. It's about distance off of the tees.

Pretty sad that major setups resort to this kind of nonsense, as pointed out by Tiger:

Q. The club has made a conscious decision to putt Kentucky bluegrass as a consistent item in their rough. What did you think of the density of the rough in terms of other PGA Championships and how you think this will all play out towards the end of the event?

TIGER WOODS: Well, the rough is really tough out there. The bluegrass is one thing, but I saw them raking it up, and not only are they raking it up, they are raking it towards the tee, so every ball that goes in there is into the grain. It's very interesting to see how they are setting up the golf course. There's just one little section probably eight yards across right off the fairways that they rake right towards the tees. Very similar to what USGA does, they always rake it towards the tees so you have into the grain lies, so therefore you can't control your shot and you can't normally get to the greens. That's how they can make the rough play more difficult. This year is no exception. It's going to be tough. It's one of those things where you either hit it down the middle or you bomb it in the gallery over there, stomp it down and you're all right. I don't recommend hitting it in the gallery all the time, but it's a lot better than hitting that bluegrass.

Joy To The Measuring Devices

Golfweek's Jim Achenbach is “overjoyed” that the USGA and R&A are going to approve distance measuring devices for tournaments that wish to allow them.

The time it takes to play a round should improve because of this decision. Competitors who carry rangefinders or other distance measuring products will play faster because they will have immediate access to distance information. No more searching for sprinkler heads with distances on them. No more pacing forward or backward from the 150-yard markers.

Uh huh.

Rangefinders are all about faster play. This is one of the reasons the USGA and R&A have decided to change the rules. Like golf cars, distance measuring devices will be considered a "condition of play" and can be declared acceptable by any tournament (but don't expect the PGA Tour to allow their use).

And now a word our sponsors:

Who are the major companies in the distance measuring field? Who will benefit from this announcement by the USGA and R&A, expected to be made next week in conjunction with the Walker Cup at Chicago Golf Club? The 800-pound gorillas of the golf rangefinder business are Laser Link Golf and Bushnell Golf. Laser Link president Rob O'Loughlin has been the loudest cheerleader for distance measuring devices and has lobbied both the USGA and R&A for a rules change. Laser Link sells the popular Quicksilver line of rangefinders.

It would have been nice if Achenbach diclosed at this point that LaserLink is a steady Golfweek advertiser. But he doesn’t. He goes on to plug a few other distances devices and the wonders of speedy desert golf, then sums it all up:

To the USGA and R&A, I say bravo. This is a rules change that reflects what is happening in modern golf and makes absolute sense.

Now I hate to be picky, but today 2005's third plea for USGA membership came in the mail (thanks, I was running low on labels!). Membership is down to $15, so in essence, the USGA loses money if I sign up.
Anyhow, on the back of the form they mention their line about governing the game to “ensure that skill, not technology, determines your score.” How do handheld measuring devices fit into that concept?

Saturday Shorts

Everyone is excited about Baltusrol. Well, not yet anyway. Tiger tells Mark Soltau that Baltusrol was "brutal." And not much more. Jason Gore shook off the rust from his week off to shoot a 59 in Nebraska. One more win and his dilemma of playing Nationwide or PGA Tour events the rest of the year becomes a non-issue.

Peter Blais in Golf Business looks at the not-particularly-sexy but important issue of handicap access to golf courses and the ramifications of a Department of Justice inquiry. Rick Arnett at SI.com is the latest to take on the sensitive subject better known as Marc O'Hair and offers a unique perspective. Tom Spousta in the USA Today writes about a player debate on spike marks. And finally, David Feherty's mailbag is fun as always, though he's a bit tough on Rory Sabbatini.