The SI website currently has a VERY interesting roundtable discussion available between Brad Faxon, David Fay, Geoff Shackleford & Larry Dorman. The web link is:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/06/06/gp.table0614/index.html

I can't remember the last time I read a more disengenous collection of statements, from a more self-serving group of people (Geoff Shackelford not included, since I agree with him, but his self-interest is evident, too -- it just doesn't distort his ability to perceive the truth).

Fay says the only reason tennis is perceived to be in decline is because its numbers were over-reported in the first place -- a hoplessly naive or dishonest statement; just look at the empty tennis courts and the sport's TV ratings, David.

Faxon and Fay vehemently deny that golf is a less interesting sport to watch these days. Based on what? The personalities of Tiger, Phil, Vijay, Ernie and Retief, only two of whom have personalities to begin with? The shotmaking in pro golf is obviously in decline, in direct proporation to the increase in driver distance.

And then Faxon has the nerve to criticize Nicklaus for wanting a restricted ball, saying the only reason Jack brings up the subject is that he has never been able to make a dime selling golf balls...then, in the same breath, Faxon says a far more important issue is getting rid of the long putter. Who's viewing the problems of the game through the prism of their own interests now, Brad?

FAY: That doesn't warrant a response.

 

You're right about David Fay's comments in that article. Virtually everything he said would have made more sense as parody than a sincerely held opinion. If he thinks hitting the fairway should be a precondition of advancing the ball and scoring, then why not just but 18-yard-wide fairways with OB stakes right down both edges? Has he forgotten he's ever seen people play the Open at the Old Course? That's been a venue for many perfectly valid Championships without eight inches of rough to punish an off-line shot.

There are some people who seem to have taken Vijay Singh's comments to the effect of "hit it long enough and missing the fairway doesn't matter" as owning up to some kind of fundamental cheating akin to picking the ball up and throwing it on the green. Brad Faxon points out something that I've often said myself

...now the kids have been concentrating on golf since they were five or six and have been trained to hit the ball as far as they can. Corey Pavin, on the other hand, can have all the new equipment in the world, and he's not going to play that way because that's not the way he learned.

That's not just equipment and it's not the golf ball. The ability to generate enormous clubhead speed and hit the shit out of the ball is a specific skill. Nowadays swing coaches understand that if you teach that skill properly at the correct point in a child's development they will always be able to hit the ball harder and farther than Jack Grout would have ever believed the young Jack Nicklaus could do. Give them that skill early in life and they can spend the next 20 years learning to hit it straight and learning to score. That is a genuine new insight into creating better golfers, akin to the many advances in weight training and nutrition and teaching any number of skills in other sports.

If you give Vijay Singh a 1970's vintage Titleist balata ball and a persimmon driver he's still going to swing way harder at the ball than Jack Nicklaus ever did. He'll hit more shots out of play (so will everyone else) and he'll give up distance (so will everyone else) and he'll have to hit 4-iron off some tees that he would now hit driver (so will everyone else) but he'll still be one of the best players in the world and he'll still use a strategy that's more aggressive than a great player in the 1970's would have thought wise.

You don't want 66 of the best players in the world averaging close to 80 on a day when, if we were [a few miles away] at the National Golf Links, we would've said, 'What a great day to play golf!' You look at the 7th hole and ask, 'Why did this hole play so much differently in 2004 than it did in '86 or '95?' It wasn't simply the firmness of the green. It was this desire -- and we have to rethink this -- to create chipping areas. They work in some places, but not everywhere. At 7 there was no place for the ball to stop. Shinnecock was a very fast course in every respect -- too fast. Maybe we have learned from that.

Chipping Areas? This is a new one, to me. I haven't seen, or remember having seen a negative word about the chipping areas. Maybe the one behind ten green?? But that was more  a function of course mis-management. Seriously, what the heck is he trying to do? deflect it onto Mark? And what the heck does he mean when he says "not everywhere"?

When Faxon says..
 

Pre-9/11, pre-stock market crash, we didn't have a thought in the world that the game was going south. We were building courses like crazy. Things have changed. People are thinking twice about spending $500 on a driver. The growth of the game has slowed, but I don't think golf is worse off because of it.

Someone shoulda reminded him about the article he wrote in '96, about how overwatering was leading to the loss of shotmakers.

Lynn,
   Did that dialog really take place and get edited-out?  Either way, I need to figure-out how to remove diet coke from my computer monitor and keyboard.  Very funny.

Cheers,
Brad

All in all, SI did a terrific job whittling what was a 2 hour discussion down to a few thousand words. Not an easy thing to do, but as my dad points out, there was one almost other-worldly, totally bizarre exchange between Fay and myself that didn't make it. Definitely a kind gesture by SI, as it did not reflect well on Fay to be claiming that the 7th at Shinnecock was rolled Saturday night, "in the middle of the night." To believe his claim would require quite a few unusual circumstances (total security meltdown, class A supers risking their careers and avoiding their 3 hours of sleep and rolling one green at a remote location in the high winds, dark, etc...).

Faxon's comment about Jack and the ball is so ridiculous...it renders me speechless, which is not an easy thing to do

Can someone please tell me what it means to "violently disagree"?

-Ted

What a bunch of self-serving politics this excercise was...excepting Mr. Shackelford, of course...  

It sure seemed that Geoff tried to get these guys to have an open exchange of views but everybody else refused to get off of their high horses - such is the game of golf today - too bad.

I look forward to the bootleg transcript of the entire discussion.

PS - Faxon's comment about Jack was really something special.

As it relates to tennis, tennis has had a difficult time for three major reasons:

1.  Super Saturday at the US Open in 1984 was sooooo good and compelling that it set the bar unrealistically high that the game has never been able to match it again.  The only other time was when Jimmy Connors made it to the semifinals in either 1990 or 1991 (can't remember which year).
2.  By 1993, all of the personalities in tennis basically retired, which makes it more difficult for people to truly connect with the sport.  The sport was quite interesting when A Ashe, J Connors, J McEnroe, I Nastase, S Smith, J Newcombe, B Becker, Y Noah, B J King, M Navratilova, etc. all played the game.  Today's players are all, more or less, devoid of that type of personality because the sport has become too much of a business to actually show any personality.  For example, Sampras and Graf were great players, but they couldn't sell the sport anywhere.
3.  The 1994 SI cover declaring tennis dead left a bullet in tennis' body permanently.

As a tennis player who has recently tried the new technology (the Dunlop 200G-4th incarnation), mishits now stay in play much easier and one doesn't have to swing as hard to achieve the type of pace necessary.  They also make volleying easier because the racquets absorb the tension unlike the racquets of old.

I think the problems with Shinnecock last year were much more political than anything--the USGA decided to make a political statement about playing the course less than 7000 yards, the normal weather conditions didn't materialize until late Saturday and having 10+ players under par wouldn't work well so certain measures were implemented.  As a result, they did succeed in the 4th round where the scoring average was 78.73.  Frankly, there was too much discussion over the 7th in the final round when more of the discussion should have occurred over the 10th--the stroke average for the 10th on Sunday was 5.03.  The top guys couldn't get down in par on that hole from 55-70 yards on Sunday because the extreme pin position (7 on, 11 from the left) left virtually no margin for error.  The R and A did something similar to this at Muirfield in 2002--I still think the set up at Muirfield was almost as bad as the set up at Carnoustie in 1999.

Some of the yardages Fay quoted for Bellerive (7191) and Olympia Fields (7190) weren't quite correct.  Neither of those venues were ready for prime time.

However, when he stated there are few championship courses over 7200, the US Open roster coming up is chock full of 7200 plus venues:

Pinehurst--7214, can still build in another 150

Winged Foot--7266 for the last amateur, +280 from the 1997 USPGA Championship in 1997

Oakmont--7171 for the 2003 amateur, +224 from the 1994 US Open

Torrey Pines--currently 7607, par 72 from the back--I would think it is absolutely guaranteed it will play at least 7300, par 70 in 2008

Bethpage--was 7214 in 2002, probably going back another 100+ yards (4, 5, 12 come to mind)

Pebble Beach--can't max out this course by more than 6925.

Congressional--7213 in 1997, 7254, par 71 for the Booz Allen, probably moving back another 100-200 for 2011 according to the PGA Pro interview on pga.com earlier today.

The USPGA Championship is already in the well north of 7200 yard range already:

1989--Kemper Lakes--7197
1991--Crooked Stick--7295
1999--Medinah--7401
2001--Atlanta AC--7213 (70)
2002--Hazeltine--7360
2004--Whistling Straits--7514
2005--Baltusrol--7392 (70)
2006--Medinah--7500+
2009--Hazeltine--7400+ (hopefully the 7th plays as a par 4)
2010--Whistling Straits--perhaps 7600+
2011--Atlanta AC--7300+ (70)

I think the USPGA is playing 2 of Baltusrol's par 4s at 503 and 505, respectively, this year because there won't be any in 2006, only one possibility in 2007 (Southern Hills 16), only two possibilities in 2008 (Oakland Hills 8 and 18, both more unlikely than Southern Hills 16), only one possibility in 2009 (Hazeltine 7), then they could really max out in 2010 if they so choose (Whistling Straits 4, 8, 15, 18, maybe reduce 16 to a par 4).

Same goes for the British Open--Lytham is the shortest venue left (6905).  Hoylake will be over 7200, Carnoustie approaches 7400, St Georges was increased by 250 yards for Curtis' victory, St Andrews is now 350 yards longer than when Daly won in 1995. Troon is pushing 7200.

Say what one will--7200+ courses are now the norm, especially if a club wants a major championship.

I think Fay meant what he said: that the problem with the greens occured in "the middle of the night." Just a hunch, but I think there's probably more to the story than has been reported.

Is Fay on drugs with this quote:

'How can you say golf is more elitist? Everything argues against that. Before any of us came along, the game was private. It's completely different now.'

or this one..

'On everything. Americans would say it's obscene that we have gas at $2 and rising. Yes, golf is expensive, but so is every other leisure experience.'

He is in a rich man's world and doesn't know shit about the rest of the world...'golf is expensive, but so is every other leisure experience.'....walking..free...rock climbing...free...running...free...squash...10 bucks....cross country skiing....free....why play golf...

The only quote from Geoff I do not agree with is this one:

'Caddying is essential. We need to get kids caddying again. That way they'll be watching, learning and making money. They'd also be getting exercise and meeting people.'

Geoff, I don't know if you have kids or not but it sounds like you don't...there is not a cat in hells chance that kids in this day and age will caddy.  They just don't need to and cannot be bothered.  Caddying has never been a big thing in Europe at a young age and never, ever will be.

Brian