State of the Game-Golf Channel show 12/5

[Geoff_Shackelford]

The Golf Channel is airing a show Friday at 8 pm EST titled "The State of the Game" featuring a panel discussion that includes Jack Nicklaus, Tom Fazio, Frank Thomas, Suzy Whaley (oy vey!) and Golf World editor Geoff Russell. It's hosted by Adam Barr. Should make for an interesting 90 minutes.

For more info:

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?age=23237&dv=89590

[TEPaul]

I won't miss it unless I forget which is getting a lot more likely than even yesterday!  

[A_Clay_Man]

Unless Geoff was being facetious, I'll wager it will be a love fest with little but B.S. and P.C. framing.

Now, if Geoff was a surprise guest, that would be interesting.

[JNC Lyon]

Maybe it would be really interesting if they had someone who actually knows something about GCA such as Tom Doak, Ben Crenshaw or Geoff Shackelford as Adam Clayman suggested.

[kwl]

i must say, the show is full of opinion. many interesting.

that said, how about a little scientific method. try a "tour ball" on some of the shorter, strategic, older style courses and determine who wins...are they "long hitters" or "short hitters"? would those that hit more greens or fairways win?

a statistician would be able to look at the stats that are collected (variables), discuss what was to be tested for, and how many tournaments it would take to test the hypotheses.

unlike preferences in architecture (subjective), we can actually study these other issues in an objective way. just takes a little desire, thought, and experimentation.

in fact, with computer "modeling" of this "complex system" one might even be able to accomplish such a task "in-silico". all one needs is money, computing power, an expert in complex adaptive systems, and a programmer to write the code for the model.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I stopped watching after an hour. Too much emphasis on distance. As the Cleveland guy said," That only effects 500 players."
I don't know where they're coming from saying that the state of the game is good and more people are coming into the game. Rounds are down or stagnant even with the course construction boom of the 90s. People don't make the commitment to learn the game.If they do take lessons, many give up. The game takes a lot of time and effort to become reasonably proficient.If you visit public/resort golf courses and get paired, you will be amazed by the lack of basic skill of many. They buy clubs, go to a range and hit balls without taking lessons and then play on courses that they can't handle- it's the American way.
Nicklaus dominated the discussions. After all, one of his sponsors,RBS, sponsored the show.
Steve

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

NO PDAK !  

Geoff,

Unfortunately, I think the selection of the panel pre-determines the thrust and outcome of the discussion, although Nicklaus has been critical of the distance issue for some time.

I don't get the golf channel in NJ, but did he advocate a
"competition ball" and if so, how was his suggestion received ?  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I only saw the last 45 minutes but it seemed to me Nicklaus was the only one who pushed hard to advocate a rolled back competition ball (something he's basically been doing for about 20 years). Nicklaus was also the only one who seemed to try to defend the architecture of the older course by saying that some of these old classic courses (ANGC, Olympia Fields) look nothing like (distance-wise) they did when he played them in his prime (he would probably be the only one on the panel who would really know about that). Nicklaus also talked about the increase in cost and land due to the increase in distance and the continued need to lengthen.

Some of the others (the tech people and Thomas) countered Jack by saying he's lost his memory and forgotten how far he used to hit the ball. At that point everyone started talking and laughing but Jack I think was trying to imply that so what how far he used to hit the ball--and that the point is half the tour is now hitting the ball farther than he used to and that's the point when it comes to what that's doing to the architecture of these courses that keep trying to stretch themselves to gear up for the tour.

The other interesting point of that discussion I believe came from the Taylor Made guy who explained in the last 2-3 years exactly what this "optimization" (finding the optimum combination of launch angle and ball spin rate for any particular player) had done to driving distance. I believe he said that finding the "optimum" combination now adds about 10-15 yards to tour pro driver length wth no additional increase in swing speed.

No one appeared to disagree with him including Thomas who should certainly know since he may have been the only one who ever tried to stop optimization with the creation of his "USGA indoor Optimization ODS test"! Actually Thomas appeared to say in his tenure distance increased about one foot per year until "optimization" was discovered and then distance really spiked.

It should also be mentioned that all the tech people including Thomas said that it appears distance increase has basically reached the outside edge of the envelop now (assuming the manufacturers stay within the ODS rules which actually have not changed in a couple of decades). It should also be pointed out that "optimization" has not technically broken those decades old USGA I&B ODS rules and regs only found a clever wrinkle within those rules and regs!)

As some of us know about three years ago the USGA both let Thomas go, dropped their proposed USGA Indoor "Optimization" Test and returned to ODS ball testing with the old "Iron Byron" test method. The USGA replaced Thomas as tech director with Dick Rugge who came to them from Taylor Made, I believe.

[A_Clay_Man]

that said, how about a little scientific method. try a "tour ball" on some of the shorter, strategic, older style courses

Kwl- I may not be a statistician, but I noticed this year that it was the shorter classic courses that did not yield many scores under 66. It was however the longer modern courses that the 62's and 63's were seen. So, your idea may a good one but not on the courses you think.

Pat- I speak a little (very) Itralian, but have no idea what your acronym means. Please splain?

[TEPaul]

Let's just assume that what Frank Thomas said last night is correct. I know many of you think what he said is not correct but just let's assume he is correct and compute his statistics minus a couple of factors such as roll that can be factored in later.

Thomas, I believe, said that that distance increased approximately one foot per year during his tenure and then with optimization in the last few years distance really spiked.

On how much optimization caused distance to spike in the last 2-3 years let's assume the CEO of Taylor Made is correct when he said last night that optimization has caused pro tour players' driving distance to spike in the last 2-3 years by 10-15 yards with no increase in swing speed. No one on that panel seemed to disagree with him about that so let's assume that's true and see where that takes us in calculating where distance increase has gone in the last 27 years (from the beginning of Thomas's tenure as USGA tech director until today).

Thomas said distance increse was one foot per year until the distance spike from optimization in the last app. 3 years.

That's 24 years at one foot per year=24 divided by 3 (yard)=8 additional yards in 24 years.

Add that additional 8 yards over 24 years to the additional 15 yards caused by optimization in the last 3 years and you have 23 additional yards of the average tour player in 27 years.

I don't have any idea what the average distance was a tour pro hit the driver 27 years ago but lets assume it was 255 yards. Add 23 to 255 yards and you have the distance the average tour pro hits his driver today being 278 yards.

Does that square with what the drive of the average tour pro is today? I have no idea but let's assume that it's low. Maybe the drive of the average tour pro today is 288 yards--a ten yard discrepency.

Is there some factor that might explain that? There might be. It might be roll added to pure carry distance. Shouldn't roll be removed from this statistical comparison of distance increase today vs 27 years ago? It would certainly seem so.

If anyone wants to compare apples to apples in distance increase as it relates to the last 27 years and the USGA and the 27 year old ODS standard, carry distance is all that should be compared (from the tee shot until the ball first hits the ground only).

Does the USGA or anyone else have those carry distance statistics or comparisions over the last 27 years? Maybe not!

Logically what happens to the ball over the last 27 years once it hits the ground really doesn't have much of anything to do with the USGA ODS standard, it has to do with the standard of general maintenance of various golf courses and how roll compares over those 27 years. And I say that fully aware that the USGA distance tests and stats over the years has included an analysis of both carry and roll with the outdoor test of Iron Byron. The USGA appears to have tried to "standardize" roll into a static factor by assuming "normal" roll--whatever that is!? But whatever it is it probably can be used to create an apples to apples comparison for distance increase over 27 years.

But the variablenes of roll over the years is a separate subject to be discussed another time.

Shouldn't carry distance over these last 27 years be all that we should be concerned with regarding distance increase over those years to determine what's happened in that time span?

Here are two relatively recent examples of why only carry distance increase might be all to be concerned with.

It was pointed out that Mickelson actually drove a 403 yard par 4. How far did he carry that ball and how far did it roll?

On the other end of the spectrum on Riviera's #18 most tour players these days seem to hit 6-9 irons into that green but I recall just about 2 years ago Robert Allenby hit a fantastic 3 wood in there to win the LA Open. Why a 3 wood? Because apparently on that day no pro was getting any roll. The roll was probably zero--just carry distance.

In retrospect is Frank Thomas right afterall? And if he isn't how wrong can he be? It's no secret if you talk to him that he does say sometimes that not analyzing the roll factor correctly is skewing these distance increase comparisons. Is he right about that?

[T_MacWood]

I watched the show (at least most of it, I was switching between it and the Barry Mantilow Xmas special looking for that freak BarneyF in the audience....isn't BarryM Jewish?). And after watching it (the golf special) I frankly didn't feel too good about the state of the game.

What struck me was the pannelists absorption on their own self interests, most of them didn't seem to care about the game--which obviously left a bad taste in my mouth. It was a diverse group and suppose it is only natural that everyone would be looking out for the niche--the equipment guys for equipment (in the guise of the common guy), Cook for the tour player (the older tour player to be exact), Suzy and the LPGA leader (for women's golf), Fazio for the ASGCA, but mostly for TFazio,..--but golf and the history of the game didn't appear to be in the mind of many on the panel.

I thought of all the panelists (who were allowed to speak) Nicklaus appeared to be the most interested in the game's direction (and he certainly spoke more than anyone).  He made some interesting points, but he is not the most articulate guy in the world (although he was near the top of this group) so many of his thoughts were not articulated as well as they could have been, especially to put some of the others on the spot.

Frank Thomas tried to make some points on architecture, but I don't think he was able to express his theories well under that format (which required quickness and conciseness...he was often cut off). And frankly I'm not sure he is taken seriously, being the man a sleep at the wheel while the equipment manufacturers got the upper hand.

I was shocked how the equipment guys came off as bumbling idiots. They appear to have no feel for the history of the game and certainly no feeling for golf architecture. Fazio came across as very bright and well spoken. It maybe in his nature to be quiet (perhaps he is shy), but I got the impression his goal was not say anything remotely controversial (and he didn't say much at all) although it was obvious he was certainly looking out for himself (rationalizing change was one the few points he made...indirectly).

I wish some of the quiet panel members would have been given more of a voice....I have a feeling they would have been spoken up for the game's interest. And from my own selfish point of view, I wish there had been an advocate for Ross, MacKenzie, Tillinghast, etc on the panel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

Public Displays of Ass Kissing  

[buffett_guy]

Nicklaus made the gratuitous but insightful reference to Bobby Jones realizing the ball needed to be controlled 70 years ago. He didn't pound the point home about the ball needing to be controlled nearly as much as I thought he might. There was a lot of back and forth about who is affected by what. Namely, the amateur vs. the pro. The discussion kept gravitating how the pro game is affected.

Fazio was by far the most clear speaking and on point during the program. The equipment guys, particularly the Cleveland dude, tended to sound like breathless salesmen. The Cleveland guy even went off editorializing on subjects that I wouldn't expect him to tackle like the child raising abilitly of Michelle Wie's parents. He wasn't very diplomatic for a salesman.

Jack tried to swing the subject back to the problem of equipment making grand old courses obsolete but it didn't seem to stick. Everyone else seemed to opine that everything needs to evolve, including the courses that importat tournaments are played on. Oh well.

All in all I found this to be some thoughtful television by smart people. The biggest problem was trying to tackle too much. The conversation was diluted by the jumping from subject to subject. I would rather see this show once a month on a more focused topic.

[T_MacWood]

b_g
I agree with you that Fazio was among the more clear speaking, but what exactly was his message (that was on point)?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

"Jack tried to swing the subject back to the problem of equipment making grand old courses obsolete but it didn't seem to stick."

Jack only speaks in terms of the professional golfer when speaking of equipment/ball technology. These courses are not obsolete for the amateur/recreational golfer. Sure, we would all like to see an Open at Merion, for example. It just won't happen there,not only because of the course but other perhaps more important(to the USGA) economic factors. There are some "classic" courses that can withstand the modern pro golfer with their equipment/ball technology. I refer Jack to this years Canadian Open at Hamilton GC.

Steve

[TEPaul]

I didn't think Solheim, the 20/20 guy or the Nike guy said much relevent about what to do about distance. The Cleveland guy and Fazio both basically made the same point--but the Clevaland guy made it more bluntly--that basically being that golf architecture should not be considered static and standardized like a football field, basketball court or net etc. He said a golf course is and should be considered "dynamic"--that meaning you can always change it to accomodate things like technological advances, ball distance increases etc. Fazio essentially said the same thing except in a much less blunt way. Ty Votaw and SuzyW both talked about women's golf.

John Cook defended the concept that strategy and clear and clever competitive management in golf would probably always win out in the end--that no human was a robot--a score of 240 was a virtual impossiblity--but that if courses needed to defend themselves they just needed to be set up harder not necessarily longer. Harder to him meant tucked pins, firm and fast greens and narrower fairways.

Thomas gave us the basic stats of what has happened distance-wise in the last 27 years and that Jack has lost his memory which Frank has been saying for about 20 years ever since Jack has been saying the ball needs to be controlled distance-wise at the tour level or that we need a competition ball for those select golfers who are capable of utilizing this new optimization and such.

I thought the Taylor Made guy was very interesting in that he basically explained exactly what the new "optimization" is and how much distance increase it was responsible for with no increase in swing speed. And also, and really interesting and relevent that this new wrinkle of "optimization" and it's significant distance increase (10-15 yards) in the last 2-3 years has been able to do this while SITLL CONFORMING to the 27 year old USGA I&B ODS rules and regs.

And Jack Nicklaus--he was the best by far if one believes distance needs to be controlled or rolled back for only the tour pro and exceptional golfer. Nicklaus's recommendation is essentially a "competition ball" to accomplish that roll-back for only those select few and he's been saying that for years. Jack was the only real advocate on that panel for the preservation of golf course architecture, particularly what happens to these courses that hold tour events or think they should do something like those that do hold tour events. Nicklaus doesn't really need to come off like some rocket scientist. He simply says the ball is going way too far in the hands of a relatively small group of golfers and something should have been done about that long ago.

If anyone in the world should know that from an experienced viewpoint it would surely be Jack Nicklaus! So many of those on the panel challenge what Nicklaus says by countering that he forgets how far he used to hit it when he was in his prime. If anyone would bother to listen to how he counters that they might learn a valuable point. Nicklaus says how far he used to hit it isn't really the point. The point is yes he could hit it collosal distances in his prime if he felt like it but the point is today more than half the tours can hit it farther than he used to and something is wrong with that. The implied point by Jack is he probably was as strong or stronger than most anyone today and if he was as strong and long today as he was then he'd be hitting it about 50 yards farther than he could in his prime. That point really is the point of what technology has done recently and that something should be done about it.

And I only heard the last 45 minutes of a 90 minute show.

[T_MacWood]

acer2x
IMO Nicklaus made one of the more interesting observations of the evening in regards to equipment advancements and the average guy. He said, and I agree, the average guy is not benfitting from the equipment advancements. He is unable to maximize the golf ball advancements and the forgiving qualities of the clubs has led to worse swings (and worse results) not better swings. Put a blade in the hands of the average golfer and he is forced to improve his swing.

The launch angle point is a red hearing in my view. The launch angle is only important because swing speeds have increased significantly because of the forgiving quality of the clubheads (among other things) and the ball spins quite a bit less. Launch angle is sophisticated way of saying hitting lower or higher...is this a new development?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I'm always fascinated by the "just narrow fairways" approach to combating distance. At what point does that become silly? When there are no fairways left?

Acer, I'd like to believe the amateur golfer is not being helped or that the everyday game is changing, but there are a lot of courses across the country looking for ways to make their course tougher to deal with changes, real or perceived. And it's choking the life right out of the sport (at least, the rounds played numbers seem are dropping, and the reasons all go back to distance pursuit effects...takes too long, too hard, too expensive).

[TEPaul]

"Launch angle is sophisticated way of saying hitting lower or higher...is this a new development?

Tom MacW:

I don't think that could be accurately called a "new developement" at least not in the sense it just got invented by the manufacturers.

What it should be considered is one half of this "new wrinkle", or "new combination" or maybe "new application"--all called "optimization". All that means is these tour player caliber golfers today are using, particularly drivers, that have a HIGHER launch angle! The other half of this new wrinkle called "optimization" is they're using those new drivers with these new balls (that do conform to the 27 year old USGA ODS rules and regs) that spin less when hit or hit with these higher launch angle drivers. With no increased swing speed that creates about 10-15 additional yards in the hands of tour cabliber players.

I say no increased swing speed and that's true. However, the thing to note is that this takes effect at or over 109mph. The presumption is that tour caliber players may have swung at or over that mph for years. And the presumption is that also very few golfers other than tour caliber type players either swing that fast or apply the club to the ball at that speed as squarely and consistently as tour caliber type players and that's necessary to do to achieve the effect of this of distance increase with this new "optimization" (10-15 yds) that tour caliber players do.

And that's why other golfers neither need a competiton ball or a rollback either. The point is very few golfers other than tour player caliber are physically capable of taking advantage of this new "optimization" as can the tour caliber player.

Have you seen any of these tour caliber players recently in a tour event? If you haven't, you should. I went to just the PGA Senior Tour Championship at Aronimink in the summer and you'd not believe how high most all of them hit their drivers now. What you're seeing is this new development called "optimization" in effect. That's why the ball is going so much farther in the last few years for these tour caliber players!

But no one is breaking the 27 year old USGA ODS rules!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I didn't get to see the show last night but will catch the rplay on Monday or Tuesday.

But for Jack to say that average players aren't affected by the equipment is ludicrous. I can name a lot of guys from this board alone, including myself that have taken advantage of the equipment in both distance and accuracy. I consider myself a below average golfer to.

[RJ_Daley]

I missed it and will try to catch it next week when it re-airs.  I noted Adam Barr implies that he had plenty of conversational material to manage and I wonder if there are many out-takes that were edited out.  Perhaps some of the edits might be as interesting as what was broadcast.  I agree with the above that a "State of the Game" regular weekly or monthly feature with one focused topic per session would be a better way to approach issues, because one hour editted verison with too many subjects addressed becomes too superficial on any one topic and many important aspects of a singular issue get glossed over or not addressed at all.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom MacWood,
Put blade irons in the hands of modern golfers and you'd see fewer modern golfers. If there are more 'worse swings' it's because there are more golfers.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Now patrick- Thats twice you've erroniously accused me of ASS KISSING. Is it all the years of playing an Emmett D. course that makes you GO THERE? or just some cabiin fever?
You have certainly touched a nerve because I'm at a loss at how or why I am AK'ing. I stated that Geoff's appearance would be interesting. I have never met Geoff and I certainly don't want a promotion. So, If thats ass kissing in your neck of the woods , so be it. And as for Brad Klein, I went to GW's website and read all of his stuff and clearly there is a chasim of difference between the logic he writes and what so called experts think, is GCA. If that isn't worth acknowledgment,this whole notion of appreciating art is headed to the toilet and Sallieri wins. Do you want that?

[buffett_guy]

b_g
I agree with you that Fazio was among the more clear speaking, but what exactly was his message (that was on point)?

~~~~~~~~~~`

I was referring mainly to his point that the reduction in the rate of growth in golf courses from the booming nineties gives the false impression that the golf industry is growing too slowly. Fazio suggested that it was more a reversion to the mean which i think is correct. Other than that he was mostly just talking his book. To wit, the classics need renovations and we need new courses for championship level play. Er, gee who does that line of thinking benefit??  

He was the best spoken of the bunch tho.

[buffett_guy]

There are some "classic" courses that can withstand the modern pro golfer with their equipment/ball technology. I refer Jack to this years Canadian Open at Hamilton GC.

~~~~~``

From what i saw on tv of the Canadian Open you are absolutley correct. It's hard for me to say without being there, but i liked what I saw on the television. The rough wasn't outrageous and the fairways weren't miniscule. But, it was firm and fast and the winning score was inside of 10 under. I like that combination.

One other subject that came up and I thought was butchered was the whole "only the long guys can win" theory. Well Mike Weir and Jim Furyk pretty well blew that out of the water this year, but Jack put it down to "statistical aberration". I think that's a little dubious. Yes the long guys have a huge advantage but i think John Cook was trying to point out that it is the long guys who also have shot making ability who are really dominant. Just long doesn't do it. Just shot making ability doesnt do it. You might survive with either, but you can't dominate without both. Take Jack and Tiger for starters.

John Cook seemed to have some interesting things to say but he never seemed to finish his points before they moved on. After he finished his point about Tiger being long AND knowing how to hit shots everyone just kind of came to a consensus that you HAVE to be long. I felt they totally missed Cook's point.