What George Carlin Would Say About Golf

Most of you know that the famous comedian George Carlin just passed away. My wife and I were watching one of his old specials last night and I got to thinking what Mr. Carlin - The Great Observer of Life - would say about golf. Here goes..

Why are so many people fascinated with the game of golf? It's a miserable game and most golfers will tell you as much after they've played their first hole. I think golf is really a stand-in for the great questions of our time, like 'what does it all mean?' or 'where do we go after we die?'. You see, these are questions that can't be answered. They go beyond the knowledge that any human has, even an Albert Einstein or a Socrates. The problem is that these questions are downright scary to think about. It's much better to think about something less threatening but equally as unknowable, like why can I hit a great shot one moment and a god awful pull hook the next.

Let's think about that. What other thing, sport or otherwise, do you learn one moment and then have absolutely zero skill in the next. Once you learn to pearl knit, you don't start losing control of your knitting needles only to jab the dog. I personally like to snow ski. I can't remember ever going backward in what I could do with skis. I've never seen anyone be able to parallel ski their first run only to find out that a snowplow was all they could muster the rest of the day. On the other hand, I dare you to show me the golfer who hasn't played terrific shots on a hole and then proceeded to play the rest of the round as if they were using a broom and a grapefruit.

Something else I've noticed about golf that keeps it forever in the category of 'life's great mysteries'. When playing a sport and things don't go so well, usually the players blame the conditons or equipment. If you go out to ski and can't control your skis very well it's because of bad conditions. No one comes in and admits 'I've lost it, I can't ski anymore'. But every golfer is faced with passing that judgment on themselves at some point in almost every round. Even Tiger Woods has his bad days. But he never blames it on the course. He doesn't tell reporters that he's driving the ball great, the problem is with the fairways.

Bottom line: we continue to play golf and alternate between the ridiculous and the sublime. One hole a par is so easy we believe we've finally found IT - the key to golf in the kingdom. The next hole we're one yanked putt away from chucking the golf bag off the nearest bridge. When is the last time you asked someone 'how's the game?' only to hear them say 'couldn't be better, this is the easiest game in the world'. Show me that person and I'll show you the golf course at the local sanitarium!

If you have a weak heart, I urge you to skip the this part! I'm going to talk about putting. Yes the easiest, hardest most mind boggling thing to do on the planet. Golf is such a kind game. The stroke that golfers make the most of during any round is the simplest - the putting stroke. You've finally covered hundreds of yards, overcome all manor of hazards to reach the promised land - a nicely manicured green carpet with a nice cup and flag on it to mark the golfer's final objective. You'd be proud to have a carpet in your home as finally groomed and cared for. All you have to do is take a nice flat bladed club, move it a few inches and gently knock your ball into said cup. There's no water, trees, sand or rough to get in the way, just a few undulations. It's so easy that this is the part of the game that children usually learn first. It's so easy that a five year old can do it with little effort. Oh don't we wish! In golf, what should be easiest is in fact the hardest. It's what ends most pros' careers. Though they've played and won tournaments their entire lives and still drive a golf ball 300 yards, all of a sudden it's impossible to knock in a three foot putt. Once mighty princes of the sport are reduced to beaten down castoffs. Broadcasters are loath to mention their names, because just the memory of someone with the yips can destroy an audience's good mood for a long time.

Golf is a great game, a crazy game, even a bit perverse and sometimes self-destructive. But it's a whole lot better than having to come face to face with the real mysteries of the universe.

Golf Is Hard On Your Body

There probably isn't anyone out there who has played golf for more than a year who doesn't agree that golf is physically tough. It's not bone jarring tough like the NFL, it just slowly takes its toll swing after swing, day after day. Maybe this is just one more reason that the sport can't seem to increase rounds played year over year.

Is there something inherent in the swing itself that makes it physically dangerous? The back is one of the major trouble spots in golf, just look at the long line of pros that have had serious back issues over their careers. If you've had a back issue yourself, which means you're in the majority of people over 40, then you probably know that the worse thing for it is 'bending and twisting'. And that is exactly what a fundamentally sound swing requires. On the back swing you twist and then on the down swing, as you transfer weight and kick your left hip to start, you have to bend as well. As well as Rocco Mediate played in the Open, does his swing look classic? To me it looks more like 'the old man swing' that you see in your own foursome. You can see that Rocco is a player who has had serious back issues. He moves through the ball in a way to minimize the twisting and bending.

And backs are just the start these days. Knee issues seem to be cropping up more and more. I've even read more stories about PGA pros with stress fractures in their lower extremities due to all the walking. For many of us amateurs, we also have the issue of carrying a bag which adds weight as well as more twisting and bending.

Golf has a lot of issues facing it if it is to be a growing sport. The physical component may be one of the most important. Maybe we're all trying too hard, or swinging for the fences too often. Maybe teaching instructors should start with stretching and warm-up exercises before a student ever touches a club. Or just possibly, someone should figure out how to teach a swing like Rocco's to the amateurs over 40.

Here's to the continued growth of golf.

US Open, Fair or Unfortunate?

By most of the players and commentators comments so far, this US Open is getting high praise for fairness. The tee and pin locations have been picked each day so that there is a mix of easy, intermediate and hard locations. As usual, straight hitting and excellent putting is rewarded, everything else punished - sometimes severely. Is this the best test of golf for our national tournament?

The USGA makes no bones about their goal of making the US Open the toughest test in professional golf. I don't think anyone disputes the notion that they have indeed achieved that. Is it the fairest test of golf? Does it test all aspects of the game equally or have they played up some while downplaying others? The USGA has put a lot of emphasis on precision. By the same token, they've eliminated the skills associated with recovery shots. Hit it in the rough and the only real option is to hack it out with a wedge, unless you're in the 2% of freak lies that offer recovery potential, like Tiger's shot yesterday from next to the cart path. Is the true test of a great golfer just precision, or should recovering from trouble get its due?

The height of the rough around the greens also puts a tremendous premium on accuracy. The rough is so penal that you're almost guaranteed to lose at least one stroke if you miss the green. Combine this with the rough by the fairways and most golfers don't go for the greens unless they are in the fairway. It's so much safer to play short and pitch up. On a couple of holes, some of the greenside rough has been shaved to peach fuzz causing most balls to roll into the canyon hazard. I saw Padraig Harrington hit a green on a long par three only to see his ball roll off and down the shaved bank and into a bush. That's not fair, that's bad luck.

I'd hate to see the US Open reduced to crowning the most accurate golfer for the week who was also the luckiest. Luck surely plays a part in the game, but should it be so important. I wonder whose prowess is really on display during US Opens, those of the pros or those of the USGA committee responsible for course setup. Unfortunately, it seems that the USGA has become a prisoner of it's own image. It's so enamored with being tough that it's afraid to try some new strategies. Maybe they should set-up an Open sometime that has long rough on some holes and shorter rough on others. Why should the rough have to be uniform hole to hole? Instead of 8 inch - luck of the draw - rough around the greens, perhaps they should let the greenside contours that the designer built in, challenge the players' short game skills more. No less an expert than Dave Pelz said Wednesday night that chipping out of the greenside rough is mostly about luck and not skill because of the type of grass and it's length.

One last question; if Tiger wasn't in this tournament and playing well, would you be as excited? Does a war of attrition make great theater? It seems to me that somewhere in the distant past you saw great charges during the Open, players making birdies on top of one another. But then again, maybe I'm thinking of someone else's tournament.

The U.S. Open Is The Peoples' Championship

Will this week's U.S. Open be about the course or about the players? You could argue that last years Open was too much about the golf course and it's ridiculous setup. Oakmont and it's membership's attitude that harder is always better is a unique venue in many ways. Torrey Pines is more representative of the U.S. Open's desire to play the annual national championship competition on public courses. And, that's as it should be.

Every amateur player should have the chance to play the courses that the Open uses, and that just isn't going to happen at the private courses representative of economic privilege that sometime slip into the rotation. Go ahead and play the Masters at Augusta and the PGA Championship where you will, but keep the Open as the peoples' championship. The U.S. Open, like the British Open, has unrestricted qualifying. You don't have to be from a special society or group or even country to qualify to play, you just have to be a great golfer. Let's hope that tradition never changes.

As for the competition itself, for me it's always about the golfers in the end because they all have to play the same conditions and course. However, as we've sometimes seen in the past, course setup can be too much of an unwanted factor. There seems to be an unwarranted amount of focus on the final score being around par. It's as if the USGA feels they've failed if the winning score is minus something. The focus should be exciting competition on challenging courses with the golfers having to make a lot of risk reward calculations. As many have commented, Augusta these days leaves little if any choices, every golfer plays it strategy-wise identically.

From what I've seen and read so far, it looks like Torrey Pines is a very fair setup. The rough is tiered a little more than in the past, while the fairways are wide by Open standards. There's been a lot written about how fast the greens will be, but they are generally very large greens and tend to be flatter. The putting challenge comes more from the 'pockets' built into the greens for pin placements rather than the spectacle of putting uphill to a cup placement only to have the ball roll past you and back into the fairway. Hard isn't always fair or even interesting to watch.

From a spectators' viewpoint, I think the test for Torrey Pines will be how many different ways an individual hole is played. If every golfer is forced into the same strategy then, in my book, it will be a big failure. A few years back, Tiger won the British Open by keeping his driver in the bag, while most of the field was using theirs. Not only was that Open championship about the golfers, it was also about the strategic beauty of the course design, something that hasn't been improved upon for a hundred years.

Can A 10 Handicapper Break 100 At The Open?

I think it was Tiger who made the comment last year that a 10 handicapper couldn't break 100 on a U.S. Open course under U.S. Open conditions. Right now I'm playing to a 10 and I confess that, at first blush, I fantasized I could do it. Then I heard Phil Mickelson give a more detailed explanation of why it would be near impossible; too much length, too narrow fairways, too tall rough and too fast greens. How might that really play out for a 10 handicapper?

Let me try the fantasy on for size. On average, I guess an Open course at an extra 1000 yards from what I usually play. Using 180 yards as an average shot, that equates to 6 more swings.

Extremely tight fairways and tall rough mean it's an extra shot every time I miss a fairway. All I'll be able to do is hit out 90 degrees with a wedge. Give me 9 more shots.

In order to not go too deep into the rough, I'll probably have to leave the driver in the bag. I'm giving up a good 40 yards with a 3-wood. If I do that on all but the par 3's, that's 14 times 40 for 560 yards. 560 divided by a 180 average club equals another 3 shots.

Because of hard greens and me having to hit longer irons due to the added course length, I'll miss a lot of greens. Then, because of the tall rough and faster greens I'm going to miss more up-and-downs. Give me 6 shots here.

How about those polished marble 13.5 on the stimpmeter putting greens? If I average 3 putts a green, that gives me 54 putts. Even at 48 putts, that probably adds 12 more putts than normal.

Let's tally:
- 6 shots for overall distance
- 9 shots for fairway rough
- 3 shots for using 3-wood instead of driver
- 6 shots for longer irons into the greens
- 12 shots for more putts on fast greens

That's 36 shots without counting any penalties. 36 added to 72 equals 108. And that assumes I'd be playing without anyone watching and no cameras going off during my back swing. The more I think about it, the more it appears that Tiger and Phil are right.

Look at it another way. 100 minus 72 equals 28 shots lost to par or about 1.6 shots lost per hole. Wouldn't it be very easy to lose a stroke and a half per hole given the added length, taller rough, narrower fairways and faster greens. Would even a 'best round of the summer' be good enough? Don't think I'd want to bet my paycheck to find out.

Slow Play

Is it just me, or is play becoming slower? I thought last year was a deterioration from the year before. Now this year seems to be even worse. Golf is not growin. Could slow play be part of the reason? 4 hours for 18 holes is plenty of time. More than once I've thought about playing at a particular course and then passed when remembering that it usually takes 5 hours there. Only a few years ago there were rangers on the course making sure everyone stuck to the 4 hour time limit. Nowadays I don't see rangers anywhere. Is that because golf courses figure they can't afford it. If that's the case, then I think they're missing the bigger picture. With slow play they are apt to lose more in greens fees than they'd have to pay a ranger.

Slow play isn't about crowded courses from what I see. I played 18 holes in a threesome last week and we played through three groups. The course wasn't crowded by any means. There were vast expanses of open holes in front of each group. They were taking in excess of 20 minutes per hole. In my definition that's not golf. Do they enjoy taking that long? I just don't get it. It's a game and it has to be fun or people will give up the sport. Waiting 3 or 4 minutes before taking every shot isn't fun.

The slow play I've seen is not because of a physical handicap or beginners' playing skills. Many golfers just don't seem to know how to play a hole as a group. In one instance last week, two golfers in a cart came 100 yards backward for a shot after playing the farthest shot first. My wife and I played behind two young men who looked to be in their early 20's. We literally played a circle around them. We finished ahead of them and played 6 extra holes in between. I have no idea why they were taking so long. They were competent players, but they agonized over every stroke as if it was worth their pay check.

Male, female, young, old, beginner and 15 handicapper - it doesn't seem to make a difference. Slow play cannot be attributed to any one group. Are golfers being effected by the slow play they see on the pro tours? Or are we, as a society, less concerned about others? A foursome can finish a round in under 4 hours without rushing a shot. It requires 'ready golf' and, except in tournaments, that should be the norm. With 'ready golf' you take your shot when you're ready to play, not standing on ceremony that the player furthest from the hole goes first.

Part of slow play may be more golfers looking for lost balls. If you hit a lot of errant shots, don't play Pro V1's unless money means nothing. Is it just me, or does it seem that most new courses are made as difficult - read long and tight - as possible. This doesn't help slow play. I predict that course design logic will change in the coming years to save the game. More modern designers should take a page out of the old Scottish designers' books. You can make a course challenging and difficult without requiring a golfer to lose balls. A pot bunker is a wonderful hazard and though you may wish you couldn't find your ball once it's rolled in, it will be lying in plain sight. Well placed trees and shrubs are challenges that don't usually eat balls.

It would help slow play if all golfers were educated on etiquette and rules, and if courses used rangers. It shouldn't take more than a few months of enforcement to 'train' players to 4 hour rounds. Beginners sometimes have to 'pick up' on a hole to keep from slowing play. Learning this is as important as learning how to hit a shot out of the sand. The U.S. could take a few pointers from the Europeans on how to keep rounds speedy. Courses in many countries require a particular handicap for play and sometimes for each tee box as well. New players are required to pass a 'playing' test with a pro before getting their first handicap card. This insures everyone is on the same page on rules and etiquette. And remember, it's no sin to let faster players through. A par 3 is a convenient place for a pass.

One last word to golfers that want to play the classic courses from the same place the pros do. If you don't hit 300+ yard drives, you aren't really playing the same course. Think about it. Even if your drives are 270, you won't be in range of the hazards, like bunkers and narrowing fairways, that the pros face. Play the tees that force you to negotiate the same hazards as the pros and your experience will more closely approximate theirs.

A Fix For Too Much Pro Distance

The PGA tour gets longer and longer. Everyone has been talking about it for at least 5 years. There have been many suggestions on how to deal with it, but the powers that be have not budged. Meanwhile top notch courses are forced to continuously add yards if they want to host the top events. Seems like an expensive way to fix a problem that results primarily from one club - the driver.

Take away the 340+ yard drives and the pro tour could continue as it has without all the expensive course modifications. The classic layouts in the game could be preserved as they are and not gimicked up as some say they've done at Augusta. Some have proposed limiting the distance of the pro ball, but this has some serious drawbacks that have been discussed at length. Why not just take the driver out of the pros' hands. I don't propose that they do it on all courses, just select ones. It would be just fine to leave some tournaments where the pros can bust the long ones. It would also work out well for the club manufacturers. They could still promote who's using their big sticks. With pros hitting their 3 woods like they did drivers about 10 years ago, we could roll back the clock with very little pain.

Who said the game can't be protected by limiting distance and still keep everyone pretty happy. And it doesn't have to be implemented all at once. Do a pilot at a couple of events next season at courses particularly vulnerable to monster drives and see how it works out.

Jack Nicklaus Please Help Save The Game

If you have read this blog over time, you know I'm a big fan of Jack Nicklaus, not only as a golfer, but for his views on the state of golf and what needs to be done to keep it great. Jack Nicklaus has done plenty for the game. If it weren't for him and Arnold Palmer, today's pros would only be making a small fraction of what they currently earn. He's also been a steadfast supporter and protector of golf's great tradition, sometime having to take unpopular stands to make his point.

So Jack, it's probably not fair that I ask you to do even more. You've done more than your share and have earned the right to live your 'golden years' in the manor you see fit and not hounded by the likes of me. But the game is in serious straights Jac, so I'm asking you to do one more thing for the game to keep it from following in the footsteps of so many other sports that are now mere shadows of what they once were.

And what is this herculean task I would give you? Figure out how to teach the average Joe and Jane how to play this game competently. Actually, that's too much to ask so I'll downsize the task, just figure out a way to teach us how to make decent full swings. If the average golfer could feel good about making a decent swing, I think he or she would learn to putt, chip and pitch on his own. I see golfer after golfer giving up the game because they can't make consistently decent contact on a full swing, even after years of playing and lessons.

Jack, you've shown that besides your prodigious playing ability, you understand so much about every aspect of the game. So who better to take on this challenge. And you'll give Tiger something to think about. Playing at the highest level is great, but can it compete with teaching at the highest level. You'd be giving the gift of this wonderful game to millions and help this sport move off it's now stagnant dime. You'd also ensure that there would be plenty of players for the golf courses you've designed. Right now, that's not a given since the sport hasn't grown its base in at least 20 years, yet new courses are being turned out faster than pizzas.

Jack, you've got the knowledge, the drive and the resources to take on golf's greatest challenge, one that's more difficult by a factor of 100 than matching Bobby Jone's Grand Slam, namely teach us poor amateur schmucks how to make a simple, effective and repetitive golf swing. Thanks, Jack - you're the greatest!

Is The USGA Killing Golf?

From what I've read, most golf analysts think the Open at Oakmont was a fair test. I agree, but only because everyone played the same course under the same conditions. It was not the intelligent test of golf it was meant to be. The U.S. Open is the greatest golf tournament in this country and, as such, it sets the direction of the sport in general. With its handling of the Open, the USGA is turning golf into an Extreme Sport, killing what's it's supposed to be preserving.

Brad Faxon and Billy Andrade just finished hosting the CVS Charity Classic at the Rhode Island Country Club. It's held Monday and Tuesday after the U.S. Open and is one of the best golf fund raisers in the country. (It's a great venue. The players are relaxed and the spectators can see some of the best in the game up close and personal.) One of the all time greats played this year - Lee Trevino. And Lee had a lot to say about the state of the sport that has provided him a wonderful life. He's upset by it's continual decline. Bottom line for Lee; it's too hard and too expensive for the average player - the one that's the lifeblood of the game.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Trevino and I think a lot of the responsibility lies with the USGA, particularly with how they set up courses for the Open. Oakmont was a big mistake. Unfortunately golf architects take their clues from this tournament. It seems a new course can only be among the best if it's over 7000 yards and is so difficult that you and I will lose at least a six pack of balls, shoot well north of 100 and spend over $100 (or maybe a lot more). Sounds like fun, doesn't it? As the cost of living and gas skyrockets like our handicaps, we'll still be happy to spend big bucks for five plus hours of torture, won't we. Yeah, right!

So what's wrong with the setup of the Open? It's that it misses the point of what golf is all about. It was never meant to be an Extreme Sport. The way things are going, in 10 years the rough at the Open will be stocked with man eating crocodiles. Or how about adding wind machines to every hole to simulate playing in a hurricane.

If you watched the Open you probably heard the quote from Mr. Fownes who was the course architect; 'a poorly played shot should be irrevocably lost'. Compare that philosphy to Alister MacKenzie's, the architect of Augusta and Cypress Point to name a few - a great golf hole should be able to be played by the amateur and the professional alike and be challenging to both. Maybe Mr. Fownes should have just said 'the player who hits a poor shot will be summarily removed from the course and beaten within an inch of his or her life'. Teach you to make a bad swing I will! Golf is about finding salvation from our mistakes, not about being hit over the head for them.

I've heard commentators get on Phil's case for blaming the rough for injuring his wrist. Hold on a moment, Phil wasn't the only one to be injured while playing and have to withdraw. At last count at least 6 players were injured. Is golf a full contact sport now - miss a shot at Oakmont and be prepared to take a blind hit from a Steeler's linebacker? I'm not a big Phil fan, but I'm in his corner on this one.

I believe golf was meant to be mostly a mental challenge. The great architects design courses with numerous routes to the hole, all with differing risk/reward profiles. The visual layout of the hole is meant to challenge and deceive the mind. Great golf is more like chess and less like a WWW Smackdown.

After watching the Open at Oakmont, I'm sure there will be architects and their customers planning the next 'top 100 course' where the fairways will be no wider than your sidewalk and the rough will look like a Kansas wheat field just before the combines arrive. It will cost you at least a month's spending money to play and you'll say 'never again' when you're finished and bleeding in the clubhouse.

I'm not against tough courses. I've been lucky enough to have played some of the great ones both in the U.S. and in Scotland and loved them. But it's wrong when their are only two shots possible; 1) a great one that gets a lucky bounce and 2) every other shot where you lose at least one stroke. Because of the setup at Oakmont, there were virtually no chances for great recovery shots. Yet, recovery shots are very much a part of the game and often what is most memorable from tournaments of old. Miss a shot at Oakmont or get an unlucky bounce and your only option was to take an extra shot and try again. Hit a bad shot and you should be challenged to make a spectacular shot for a recovery. There was no such option at Oakmont. Your only choice was to take your wedge and gouge it out 90 degrees. This is not exciting golf, it's actually painful to watch. If every course was setup like this, there would be no place for the Seve Ballesteros's of the world.

In the coming years, the people who are supposed to be promoting this great game will sit in their offices, scratch their heads and wonder just what went wrong. My advice to them is to go back and read how golf began, why it prospered for centuries and what was on the minds of the great course architects. And start promoting a game that a normal working family can enjoy. The professional game has to dramatize the allure of golf and, believe me, it's more about the mental than the physical. They also need to find better ways to teach the game. Most amateurs fight some kind of slice, which indicates their basic swing is seriously flawed. They rarely understand how to 'let the club do the work'. And they sure as hell aren't going to play a tight, extremely penal course more than once a year.

And if the USGA isn't going to rise to the occassion and address the problems they're most responsible for creating, then the stars and future course designers will have to. I guess this means you, Tiger. You are probably the one person who has a shot at single-handedly changing the game. When I was a kid, I played at a course that had dirt tees. My friend Robby used to bring a hammer - yes the kind you drive nails with - so we could pound our tees in. We played because it was cheap and we had a lot more fun than if our parents were members at Oakmont. Tiger, maybe you never played a course like that. If not, go out to a few local dog tracks and see what's going on. You're a charitable guy and have helped thousands of people. Why not help 10's of thousands learn the game by designing some cheap challenging courses that the average family can afford. Help us get back to the great game that golf has always been.

Are Private Clubs The Next Dinosaurs?

More golf courses are built every year, but the number of golfers stays the same. To me that means more supply for the same demand and that equates to more courses competing for the same number of rounds. The fact that more and more private clubs are scrounging for new members seems to support that conclusion.

In New England, where I live, many (maybe most) private golf clubs are having to deal with shrinking membership. They have three choices; 1)raise rates to the remaining members, 2)try to find new members to replace those that die or leave or 3)sell the place to their local real estate developer. The problem with choice 2 is that private clubs are not on the cutting edge of marketing, having been spoiled in years past when prospective members had to literally beg to get in. Those days have been gone for a number of years now.

Today, during 19th hole discussions one often hears about local private clubs trying to actively market their memberships, particularly with rumors of reduced or eliminated initiation fees. Initially these offers sound tempting until you do some simple math to see what you're getting.

For example, one good quality local club is offering to wave the thousand dollar initiation fee. Here's what it would cost for my wife and I when you look at what's left; $7000 for golf and lockers (with some restrictions on player 2), $1000 for mandated cart fees (whether you use them or not) and $1000 for mandated food expenditures. That adds up to $9000 for a season of golf. If money is no object that may be a good deal, but for the middle class it just doesn't work. My extra money is going to increases in gasoline, home heating, health care and property tax to name a few.

My wife and I can play all season at fair to excellent courses for under $2000. That includes at least a couple of rounds at the area's best public course. How can I justify paying 4 times that for golf at one OK course? And by not going for the private course we'll have money to spend on golf if we can get away somewhere warm during the winter.

To my way of thinking, the private clubs are missing the mark big time. They have to come up with new and innovative products to sell or they are going to eventually die. There are only so many upper class golfers out there who can afford traditional private course memberships. And most of these, being older adults, already have their membership somewhere. Apparently today's younger well-to-do players don't think about private clubs the way their parents did. They don't seem interested in joining the old boys and girls clubs. Maybe because after buying the obligatory McMansion and SUV, they don't have enough left for the private club. Or maybe the value isn't there for them when they see how many good local courses they can play for a lot less. Who needs the locker room, wants to pay for carts you don't use or buy food that's not as good as most of the local restaurants.

The USGA, PGA, Club Owners Association and the like had better start to figure out how to sell rounds in new ways or a lot of golf courses are going to be left out to dry or be turned into housing tracts. Groups like the PGA, that feed off amateur golf, should put some of their creative talents into selling the game and not just making a few pros multi-millionaires.

I have a couple of suggestions for any groups that want to address the issue: 1) Focus on teaching the game. One reason that the number of new golfers each year just about equals the number who quit is because they find the game too hard. 460cc square head drivers don't seem to be the answer. All the new equipment in the world won't make up for terrible technique. 2)Make the game easier to sample in small bites; consider selling regional passes that allow a couple of rounds each at a group of local clubs, even if you have to limit tee times to low traffic periods. Sell range passes. Club pros could offer special small group lessons on weekday mornings instead of spending their free time trying to adjust member handicaps who can't quite get their scorecards correct.

Somebody, in a position of leadership, had better step-up to the problem or there will be a lot of hand wringing about the state of the game in the not too distant future.

CBS, Fed Ex, Faldo and Finchem

I love Jack Nicklaus and it was great to see K.J. Choi win the Memorial in sterling fashion - fabulous bunker play and putting on the last holes. Congratulations Mr. Choi - well done and well deserved!

Why then, did the whole thing leave a bad taste in my mouth? As I've written in this blog before, this year's CBS coverage of golf is troubling. It's not just CBS of course, but a combination of Tim Finchem, the FedEx Cup and Nick Faldo as color commentator. Here's how I see it.

The FedEx Cup has an insane amount of money at stake for the players. From a player's perspective this is where the big dollars are. That's not to say that winning a million dollar first place check isn't good pay, but you'd have to win 10 of those to earn what you can get for first place in the FedEx Cup. I think there's a limit to how much sports figures can make before the fans get turned off by excess. The game is in danger of losing some of it's appeal when so many players can earn millions in any given year and not even win. It takes away from the integrity of a sport where you got paid only if you earned it - no million dollar salaries for bench warmers.

I believe there is even a darker side to this. Most golf fans watch the sport on TV. It's the medium that creates our view of professional golf and determines if we enjoy watching it or turn on Major League Baseball instead. Many golf fans have never seen a professional tournament. Most baseball fans have been to at least a game or two and it's that live experience that colors our view of it on TV. When your watching at home it's easy to smell the hot dogs and feel the peanut shells under your feet.

Golf relies much more on the TV broadcast to set the scene and feed our imagination. How can CBS do this if they have to devote more time to advertising than to actual coverage of the competition? They're in a hole before coverage even begins. Add to this that with so many commercials they can never provide more than a few uninterrupted minutes of golf. The result is no flow, no sense for the viewer of what's happening on the course. It's just a few random shots and putts interspersed among a lot of commercials. This same approach killed the winter Olympics where you need to see a slalom heat or a ski jumping round from beginning to end to get emotionally involved. Even baseball has protected the sanctity of the half inning.

Golf has to be sold to us as drama, and it's the networks job to do this. Pro golfers are not a flashy bunch in the first place and today's young players seem to have all worked hard to take emotion out of their game. Maybe this makes them play better, but it certainly makes for a less exciting viewing experience for us. They keep to themselves with their emotions tucked neatly into their golf bags.

If there's any hope for this recipe for disaster to succeed, it falls to the commentators. They have to somehow create drama where it's all but invisible, help us forget the constant interruptions and keep us on the edge of our seats. They only seem able to do this when Tiger is in contention because of the larger than life drama that follows this era's greatest player everywhere he goes. Otherwise it's a bit ho hum, or maybe a lot ho hum. While Nick Faldo is knowledgeable and makes insightful comments they never come together enough to describe the drama that's unfolding. The great English golf commentator Peter Alliss makes few comments, but it works when the BBC pretty much lets the cameras role without commercials. Johnny Miller is much better than Nick in this department, even when he comes across as a bit superior to everyone out on the course. Don't downplay that he's helped immensely because NBC doesn't break up the coverage like CBS.

In the end, the whole ball of wax falls on the Commissioner's shoulders. After all, he dreamt this thing up, created the format, determined the purse and then negotiated the deal. While the FedEx Cup may be a terrific idea, it's execution ultimately dooms golf fans and the long term outlook for the sport. Did someone forget that you're not supposed to kill the golden goose?

Singer, Songwriter AND Golfer?

I got a kick out of this quote.

I just can't imagine what Bob Dylan's swing might look like.

"Mr Dylan would have to apply in writing just like everyone else and be vetted by the committee. If there were no objections, then he would be a member after paying the membership fee, which at present is £105"

Jack McCool, treasurer of Abernethy GC in Scotland, on American music icon Bob Dylan, who recently bought a home next to the course.

Pack of Chesterfields Anyone?

I love these vintage golf ads and hope to display more of them here.

I especially like the headline: "Stay Out Of The Rough - Smoke Chesterfields Like I Do!"

I guess they are saying if you smoke Chesterfields you can magically stay out of the rough.

Actually Chesterfields are still being made today.

Too bad, if only I smoked.

Industry Wish List for 2007

I love the game of golf and want to see it prosper. Here's what I hope the golf industry accomplishes in 2007 to improve the game for the average amateur golfer:

Build good courses with 18 hole fees less than $35. Make courses environmentally friendly. Encourage designs that follow natural contours, disturb as little of the natural vegetation as possible. Promote links style courses over target golf. Use more pot bunkers in the US.

Speed up play so that 18 holes can be played in less than 4 hours. I suggest educating the public during pro tournament broadcasts, using course rangers, and generally shortening course length for normal play. Consider restricting tee boxes by handicap.

Build courses that promote walking. Keep greens and adjacent tee boxes in the same zip code.

Take the mystery out of club fitting and launch monitors.

Give us golf ball testing data so that we can let the data point us to a golf ball that has good distance and spin characteristics for $25 or less per dozen.

Create a website that lists private clubs by location along with their initiation fees, monthly dues, length of waiting list and application process.

Create a website that lists all the charity tournaments by location. This would make it easy for players to signup for a tournament at the private courses they would otherwise never get to play. This would also help charity tournaments fill their fields.

Encourage all golfers to keep a handicap. Enforce the handicap rules. Require handicap groups to provide the service year round. Golfers in gold climates should be able to enter their scores when they play in warmer climes during winter vacations. And, golfers should feel obligated to enter these scores.

Create statewide golfer discount cards that allow one or two rounds a season at public and semi-public courses for one annual fee. Some states used to have such things that also raised money for charity.

Build better practice facilities, focusing particularly on improving the short game.

Provide more swing and shot analysis during pro tournament broadcasts. Video analysis is particularly helpful. And sell broadcasts rights for a fee that allows fewer commercials, otherwise you're going to kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs.

Take some of the broadcast revenue and use it for introductory teaching clinics for children, women and the short game for everyone. There are plenty of good pro golfers playing the game these days, you don't need to keep fattening the purses.

Course operators, use the online tee time services to bring in players during your slack times and to generally allow more efficient booking of tee times.

That should be enough for 2007. I'll save the rest for 2008. Let me know what you'd like to see.

Pace of Play

We've all been a victim of slow play, but never have been responsible for it ourselves. Or so most of us think. But if there is so much slow play out there, then it stands to reason that quite a few of us must actually be playing slow. Not all the time, mind you. It doesn't take more than a slow hole or two for each foursome for the entire course to be backed up. So how do we fix it? And fix it we must or this sport will never grow.

First, what is slow play. I think that most would agree that the international standard for playing 18 holes is 4 hours. I'll bet 99 out of 100 golfers out there would love to get 18 holes in over the weekend in 4 hours. 5 hours is probably more the norm here in the US, with many rounds pushing the 6 hour mark. Ugh! And it's no fun having to wait before hitting almost every shot. You're playing well for a few holes, then you start having to wait and the birdies turn to bogeys.

So why does it take so long. Is it one slow foursome that plays slow early in the morning and screws everything up for the day. If so, then the fix is to get rangers on the course and have them do their job. I've heard of courses where you are told to 'pick your balls up folks and proceed to the next tee' if your deemed to be playing slow. Maybe a bit harsh, but it probably only happens once to you before you decide that keeping up is more important than finding that lost ball that will be unplayable anyway.

Some think it's courses that are too long for amateurs or looked at another way, too many amateurs play off the back ties when they have no business being there. Perhaps you should have to show your handicap card before attempting the tournament tees and then demonstrate you have a 300 yard drive if you want to play something 7000 yards or more.

I've been behind my share of slow foursomes and even threesomes. From what I observe, I'd say the following are the biggest problems. 1)Looking for lost balls. If you're playing on a course that's crowded, then be prepared to hit provisionals and keep play going. And if you hit a lot of shots where they can't be found, buy the cheap balls until you get better so you won't feel bad about leaving that Pro V behind. 2)Not playing 'ready golf'. If you don't know what that is, then you're part of the problem. Too many weekend golfers stand on ceremony when it doesn't do anyone any good. If you're ready to hit your shot and the guy further back is still mucking around for his ball, you have my permission to go ahead and hit. 3)Taking way too long to line up and hit putts. I'll admit that we are all probably negatively affected by what we see the pros do. But remember, these guys are playing for hundreds of thousands and in most cases they're on the green in regulation. They've earned the right to take some extra time to putt. For the rest of us, line up when someone else is putting and then step up and wack it when it's your turn. It may even help your putting if you reduce the time you have to think about that gnarly little 4 footer.

My suggestions are all well and good you might be thinking, but how do we get the golfing public in general to start putting them into practice. I think the best way is for the national organizations like the USGA and the major club manufacturers to take this on. It's in their best interest because faster play means more people will ultimately take up the game and fewer will drop out. And that sells rounds and equipment. After all, it's been decades since there was any growth in golf. They should get the message out with commercials during TV coverage of the pros. Get the golfing superstars to tell us that slow play isn't cool. Let the USGA lead the way by telling people that slow play hurts the game for everyone and that rangers will enforce the rules for the good of the game.

Too often the official bodies that manage sport have neglected their duty and, as a result, sports like soccer, basketball and hockey are withering before our eyes. Please don't let it happen to golf! And let each of us who does care set an example, it just might be catching. If you think it can't be done, then go to Scotland and try taking more than 4 hours for 18 holes - I pitty you laddy if you're foolish enough to attempt this life threatening stunt.

What's Wrong With US Golf

Depending on your mood you might say 'nothing' or 'everything'. I tend to lean more toward the latter. Are things occurring in golf that some months or maybe a year or two down the road we'll exclaim 'why didn't someone do something'?

First, I can't resist making a comment about US men's sports in general. Has anyone noticed how poorly we've faired in recent years? Remember the US basketball team - they were so bad I was routing against them in the last Olympics - and in a game that we created. Then there's baseball, hockey, alpine skiing and maybe in a couple of hours - soccer. Is it just coincidence, or is something wrong here at home.

I don't want to ruin your day, just yet, but remember the embarrassment of the last Ryder Cup. It's one thing to lose, even lose badly, and quite another to be so uptight, tightlipped and self-involved that you forget those who made you what you are, namely the fans. In case you forgot, the US squad was so out of touch during the practice round that the US fans started routing for the Europeans!

How much more do we need to understand that we might be getting a wakeup call? More tomorrow....

Family Golf

I was recently at the US Kids Golf website investigating some clubs for my nephew when I noticed the "Family Courses" tab in their main navigation. There they provide you with a list of golf courses that meet or exceed "our family course criteria" - it seems these "designated" courses have (or have added) 2 additional sets of tees. Green tees - 2200 yards and Yellow tees - 3750 yards - the obvious logic being *most" forward tees (usually white) are to long at 5000 yards for kids and beginner adults.

Personally, *I like* the idea of promoting family golf but in all my years of playing golf I am having a hard time remembering ever seing a family play golf together. Certainly a father and son or less frequently a mom and daughter - but a family!? and now family-friendly courses?

Curious if other have seen families play recently.

Save Golf, Let The Free Market Work

Talk to private golf club owners and you'll see that many are having problems, namely not enough members to support their clubs. Why? Because their old members are dying off and are not being replaced by younger ones. Add to this that there are lots of new courses being built every year, but the golf population is not growing. Every year as many golfers leave the game as take it up.

At some point in the past private golf was more affordable. Golfers got on waiting lists to get into the private clubs. When you've got waiting lists, free market thinking says you can go ahead and raise prices. Times have changed. Now many private clubs are offering 'deals' to entice new members, sometimes lowering initiation fees, annual dues or both. The problem is that they don't have a good way to market themselves.

I believe there is a solution to this problem and it's enabled by the internet. There are some very good programs for finding golf courses anywhere in the US. However, often details behind the courses are incomplete. Imagine one of these applications allowing clubs to post their membership costs. You could efficiently view the private club options in your area. I'm guessing membership requests would go up quickly for those priced right.

I see at least one problem to this solution. Many clubs are still snobbish, even when their numbers dwindle. They only want a 'certain type' of person to join. They want you to sweat your application process. I think economic reality is going to put an end to that type of approach fairly soon. Witness some of the newest and 'best-in-state' clubs that have sprung up in recent years. They are semi-private in that any one willing to pony up $100 or more can play. But they also offer straight forward memberships. Go their websites, see if the price of belonging suits you and you can be a member as soon as your check clears. And why shouldn't it be that simple. Why should anyone be deciding that someone else isn't fit to play for some reason other than being able to pay the cost?

For you companies supplying the golf directories, here's an opportunity. Grab it first and you may distance yourself from the crowd, doing clubs and golfers a service at the same time.

Who's hitting it farther with Technology?

I don't think there's much dispute that the tour pros are hitting the ball farther these days, a lot farther. Tons of guys now regularly hit it over 300 yards. I just read the other day in Frank Hannigan's column that there has been an average increase in their driving averages of 27 yards over the last decade. General consensus has 15 yards of that due to the club and 15 due to the ball. And now we're finally getting some discussion on what might be done about it. But my issue here is with the rest of us.

Most pundits agree that the average golfer has not gained any distance. Yet, we have access to the same clubs and balls. Maybe we don't have the clubs fine tuned like the pros, but we can still get the same club heads providing the famous trampoline effect. Is it really true we don't hit it further today than we did 10 years ago?

When I first tried the Pro Vs, I did my own little test. I played by myself on a nice summer evening. I played a couple of Stratas and a couple of Pro Vs. I could swear I was about 10 yards longer on the drive with the Pro V, but I admit the test wasn't scientific.

I just bought myself a slightly used Nike 460. I haven't taken it on the course yet, as we still have snow on the ground, so I don't have any experiencial data to report. I'm thinking of taking it to a really good local clubmaker and trying the swing launch monitor thing. This involves about $4,000 in equipment and with it they can tell you everything about your club and ball at impact. How fast, how high, launch angle, how much spin and who knows what else. Then the clubfitter selects just the right shaft, with all the right characteristics to maximize your distance and control. The evaluation costs about $50 and then there's the cost to revamp the club. The shaft alone could cost more than $100 bucks. Don't know if I want to spend that kind of money, but maybe I'll do it in the name of science. If I do, I'll be sure to write about the experience here.

What I want to know is what is the experience of the rest of you. Are the 'experts' right that we amateurs aren't gaining any distance. Or could there be another explanation. Maybe we are gaining, but nobody tracks it so no one knows. Or maybe you have to be at a certain handicap level to take advantage of the technology. I'd sure like to know. I think I'd be most releaved to find out we aren't gaining anything. Then I could stop lusting after new clubs, believing that they are the answer to what ails my game. And think of the money I could save!

MapMuse, Map This!

From what I understand the number of golfers playing the game in the US is not growing. On the other hand, I'd say there's a new course opened about every day of the year. My conclusion; that a lot of private clubs are looking for new members. I know many clubs in New England have reduced entry fees and/or initiation dues to attract new members. Problem is, they don't have a very good way of advertising their opportunities.

Who wants to admit that you are looking for members. Most clubs are supposed to be prestigious, meaning you should have to work to get in. Advertising cut rates in the paper takes away some of the glamour perhaps or could make people think there might be something wrong. Maybe they just had their greens wrecked by frost kill.

On the other hand, let's say you just moved into a new area and you're an avid golfer with some ready cash. Wouldn't you like to be able to see all the local private courses compared in a spreadsheet. Show me initiation, annual fees, mandatory spending levels, course length and rating, average age of members and distance from home. It sure would help the decision making process.

Now imagine an interactive map that uses your zip code as the center location and shows you markers for every course within your selected radius. Add in membership fees, course details, hole by hole descriptions, clubhouse amenities, and name of the local pro and you've got an application I'd sure like to use. A company called MapMuse has the beginnings of just such a product. Check them out at http://find.mapmuse.com/re1/interest.php?brandID=GOLF_ALL&authCod=oran. You'll be pleasantly surprised.