Unplayable Lies

New Unplayable Lies

2005-07-26T09:08:00.000-04:00

You should have been re-directed, but if you haven't, check out the new site for Unplayable Lies.

Votaw to the PGA TOUR

2005-07-22T18:50:00.000-04:00

In a stunning news development, both in what the news is and who broke the news, Chris Baldwin of TravelGolf.com is reporting that Ty Votaw, outgoing (and going and going and going) commissioner of the LPGA Tour, "is set to assume a high-ranking post in the PGA Tour that will essentially make him Commissioner Tim Finchem's right-hand man..."

The PGA TOUR released this statement through their website: "The news account that LPGA Commissioner Ty Votaw has been hired to come to the PGA TOUR is an overstatement.
It is true that since the transition has been completed at the LPGA, Commissioner Finchem has spoken to Votaw and indicated an interest about Commissioner Votaw's future.
Commissioner Votaw is on an extended vacation in Europe, and Commissioner Finchem looks forward to having conversations with him later this summer or fall. There is no employment understanding at this point in time. It would be premature to assume otherwise.
Commissioner Finchem has often publicly indicated his appreciation for Votaw's performance at the LPGA. If an employment offer and acceptance develops at a future date, an appropriate announcement will be made at that time."

So, to understand the timeline, last week Commissioner Votaw reviewed Morgan Pressel's application for a waiver to join the LPGA Tour. Votaw ruled that she can enter qualifying school this fall and, if successful, join the tour in 2006 after turning 18. Then within the last couple of days, he rejects 15-year-old Carmen Banda's waiver outright. In a statement, Votaw said: "Your application does not satisfactorily demonstrate to me that you can compete at the highest level of women's professional golf at this time, and it is primarily for this reason that I must deny your application."

Then Mr. Votaw talks to the PGA TOUR about a job, and leaves on a trip abroad, and now Carolyn Bivens takes over as LPGA Commissioner, with major decisions already decided by the outgoing commissioner?

In an understatement, there seems to be much more to this story.

Stat o' the day

2005-07-22T17:08:00.000-04:00

Sports Illustrated doesn't always post online the material from Golf Plus, which makes sense, otherwise why would any golf fan order it, but the stat of the day is from Golf Plus, but for sake of propriety, we'll link to Sports Illustrated. Golf Plus polled their Top 100 teachers, and asked the question:

"With 51 players finishing under par, is the Old Course obsolete?"

Yes - 5%
No - 95%

Does this mean that the 100 Top Teachers, who you'd think would have their finger on the pulse of the game, either haven't been listening to those few in the sports media and golf course design industry who claim the game is in ruins, and cite the average driving distance at the Open as Exhibit A, or that they actually represent the rest of the golf world?

The pen is.....

2005-07-21T16:49:00.000-04:00

Mightier than the sword. We've all heard that, haven't we? From British poet, novelist and politician Edward Bulwer-Lytton (many believe it is a quote from William Shakespeare, but the Bard's countryman Bulwer-Lytton penned it some 200 years after Mr. Shakespeare's death.), who also began one of his novels, "Paul Clifford", with the now legendary "It was a dark and stormy night;" which is also how I began every creative writing assignment in high school.

As written often in this space, the morphing of real fact-based journalism into "columnist" journalism, with reporters opining about this or that, seemingly unconcerned with any potential fallout from their sometimes ill-informed views, personal agenda or poorly chosen text, has altered the information landscape severely. Not only do the written words cut deeply into the life of the subject, but the subject rarely has at their disposal, a vehicle or platform in which to respond.

On rare occasion, the "reporter" is moved to write a second column about the person in question, because the person in question is either famous or knows someone in the paper's executive ranks who is willing to "gently pursuade" the reporter to be more fair.

One of those occasions happened with well-respected Orlando Sentinel reporter/columnist Mike Bianchi, who wrote about a couple of phone calls he recently got from college basketball analyst Dick Vitale. The first call went like this, left on Mr. Bianchi's voicemail: "Michael Bianchi, Dickie V here trying to get a hold of you, man. Your dome looks like mine, baby. What’s a paisan like you doing ripping a paisan like me? Are you kidding me? We’re supposed to stick together, baby. Let me come to Orlando and buy you a nice Italian dinner and we’ll talk about this."

A day later, Mr. Vitale got the voicemail again, and Mr. Bianchi describes the message thusly: "....Dick Vitale calls back and leaves another rambling message politely objecting to a five-sentence item I wrote after the NBA draft in which I accused Vitale of 'shilling for college basketball.'"

The supposition here, is that if this were you or I, (unless you're someone as famous as Dick Vitale), our complaint would never see the printed page. Or perhaps it was because Mr. Vitale voiced his displeasure politely; we'll never know for sure.

Mr. Bianchi, if you've read this far and haven't read the column, feels Mr. Vitale lost some credibility sticking up for former Georgia coach Jim Harrick and former Baylor coach Dave Bliss, both who left their respective schools with NCAA sanctions to live through.

But Mr. Bianchi also comes away impressed with Mr. Vitale's enthusiasm for his job, giving ample space to Mr. Vitale's defense of his professional approach.

But is the newly penned appreciation sincere? Or is it still just a nice way of calling someone a shill?

Hindsight (The Open Championship)

2005-07-20T12:45:00.000-04:00

Time for the customary major review, a few days after the dust has settled and all the scribes and television potentates have weighed in, on the issues and reactions from the Old Course.

Many wrote and commented on how Tiger Woods is no longer part of the Big Four, but that it's back to being Tiger and the Big Three after his dominantly impressive win Sunday.

A surprising number wrote about how well the Old Course stood up to the modern player and game, even with R & A chief executive Peter Dawson explained in a post-tournament press conference, written by the scotsman.com, that the Old Course set-up perhaps made a mistake with the rough at 17: "In retrospect, what we did there was perhaps not the smartest thing, though I think it would be a wrong analysis to surmise that was the reason people stopped using driver."

The story in the scotsman mentions the concern that the Old Course may be outdated by today's power game, but notes that only one player hit double digits under par (the winner), and that conditions were very benign - had the weather kicked up, as Tiger Woods pointed out early last week, the scoring would have been much different.

A few wrote about the fact that nearly every player making the cut averaged over 300 yards off the tee, but they failed to mention the incredible roll - and unfortunately, today's stat-gathering devices don't measure roll, just distance from tee shot to final resting. Both TNT and ABC announcers noted the roll, estimating some shots rolled anywhere from 50 to 100 yards.

The game is in ruins hysteria was drown out by Mr. Woods' and the Old Course's performance. Evidently, the R & A felt the Old Course did so well, even in good weather conditions, that it looks like it will host the Open in 2010, the 150th anniversary.

BS with a C(razy)

2005-07-18T15:19:00.000-04:00

The hot, lazy, sticky dog days of summer are upon us. With temps reaching the 80's and 90's daily, sweating walking out to get the morning newspaper, a breeze embraced like a long lost friend, your thoughts undoubtedly turn to.....college football?

After a season when some of the game's stewards called for preseason polling to be scaled back, when the coaches almost pulled out of the, well, coach's poll, when ESPN did pull sponsorship of the coach's poll, and the Associated Press stated they no longer wanted to be one of the ingredients that make up the BCS rankings, the hope was a bit of sanity returning to the game.

Hope no more.

Not only can you not swing a South Carolina football helmet without hitting a pre-pre-season poll, you also find media outlets providing "over-rated" and "sleeper" prognostications long before fall practice even starts. Like now.

ESPN and ESPN.com's in-season college football coverage is unparalleled; with a vast array of experts and ex-players, they're tops, stance down. Perhaps in an attempt to beef up their off-season content, ESPN.com has former Nebraska (and NFL) linebacker Trev Alberts present his "over-rated" and "sleeper" picks for the 2005 season.

Keep in mind that there is a wide divide between what kind and amount of information those covering the NFL are able to report, and have access to, and what kind and amount of information those covering college football have access to. The NFL has rules stating teams must report injuries; players are available to be called at home or on their cell phones. The NCAA has none of that - you call a player at home, without prior approval of the head coach, and you may find yourself in a bit of hot water. Point is, it's tough to do much prognosticating in the summer about college football, because so little is known during the off-season.

So when Mr. Alberts has Notre Dame, a team coming off a 6-6 season, a team that is two games under .500 over the last two years, a team with a new head coach, a team that neither of his colleagues at ESPN.com have ranked in their top-25, as "over-rated", it causes one to scratch one's head. A couple of times.

And perhaps for the first time since Bobby Bowden arrived on the Florida State campus, he's wearing the "sleeper" tag, courtesy of Mr. Alberts. FSU is ranked no worse than 14th by his colleagues, and in some polls, as high as 11th. They have had some injuries, some arrests and some tick-born infectious diseases hit the team this spring, but when a program like FSU is labeled a "sleeper", the rest of the gridiron country may not get a lot of sleep.

Of Course

2005-07-18T12:08:00.000-04:00

Tiger Woods' dominance of a star-studded leaderboard was a win for the ages - little if any drama, but compelling theatre due to the historical significance, "where" and "how" especially.

Mr. Woods' wire-to-wire win erases any doubts or doubters - marriage, swing changes and coaching changes will not conspire to lessen his presence and impact on the sport.

Securely affixing his stamp as the man to beat in golf at the home of golf, Mr. Woods' proved that whether designed centuries or weeks ago, he's got the game for any course.

While on the topic of the course, remember how we wrote in this space a few days ago, that no matter how well the course is set up, someone is still going to complain about something? Cue John Daly, courtesy of the Washington Post: "I had a great opportunity to finish in the top 10 if I'd made some putts," he said. "The way the Royal and Ancient put the pins this week, it made the course tougher. I've seen pins this week I've never dreamed of or even seen." So, if you don't make putts, it's because of the pin placements? Mr. Woods had only 1 three-putt green all week - Mr. Daly had 7.

Have been pleasantly surprised to see the overwhelming majority of media coverage focused on Mr. Woods' feat and overall accomplishments, not on how the game is in ruins because he dominated the field and the course for most of the week. Even Mr. Woods' breaking his driver, forcing him to use a back-up, didn't seem to affect his play.

Jay Flemma in GolfObserver profiled Old Tom Morris, whose impact on golf many scribes compared to Mr. Woods last week, and his career as a player, equipment maker and course designer and greenskeeper. Mr. Flemma points out that not only was Mr. Morris bold enough to embrace the sport's evolution, he utilized the continued changes to keep the Old Course, the place many in golf were calling "the game's grandest stage" a work in progress: "Morris even constantly tweaked the Old Course incessantly while greenskeeper, much like his protége' Donald Ross later did at Pinehurst No. 2. One of the most popular anecdotes involves the infamous Hell Bunker. In 1882, Hell Bunker was much smaller than the enormously deep and wide behemoth it is now. One irreverent wag of a member blustered about course conditions to Morris, commenting that he had one good lie all day — at the bottom of Hell Bunker - and that he hit a wooden club from it. Morris' response was predictably reactionary. He sent a work crew to the 14th with instructions to make Hell Bunker so big and so deep no one will ever escape from it with a wood again."

Mission delayed

2005-07-15T19:04:00.000-04:00

Instead of writing something that actually tackles a real subject, there's so much going on in spits and spurts at the British Open that I'm taking a waiver on the expressed mission of UnplayableLies (no, I did not have to petition outgoing LPGA commissioner Ty Votaw for permission).

Now I know what TNT's/ABC's/BBC's Peter Alliss was alluding to when he referenced whining professional golfers, courtesy of the Telegragh. Seems no matter what the course set-up, or who does the course setting up, some players are going to find something wrong. Interesting bit of perspective from Tiger Woods, who at -11 doesn't have much to complain about, but is surprised by those calling for the weather to kick up so the Old Course can't be tamed: "It doesn't matter whether it blows or not," he said. "Everyone is playing the same course. There will be years when the wind blows and the scoring is up; others when it's still and the players go low. That's as it's meant to be. Let Mother Nature take her course."

Usually it seems that the players that aren't playing as well as they'd like are the ones who are complaining about the course set-up. Vijay Singh and Ernie Els were both complaining after the first round. Quotes from the second round aren't in yet, but Mr. Singh played very well, sitting at -6, and if his putter had been more cooperative, his score would have been much lower. He was all smiles sitting with TNT's Jim Huber after his round.

Many would argue Jack Nicklaus, playing what we think will be his last round in a major, provided the shot of the day with a birdie on 18, after a memorable walk and photo op on the Swilcan Bridge. Instead, I'm nominating the shot from TNT of the patron asleep near the 12th tee box as Mr. Nicklaus hit his drive almost right over the man’s prone body. Who goes to the trouble to buy a ticket into the British Open, has a prime spot to watch the greatest player ever tee off, and promptly lays down for a nap?

Who does that??

That shot beats last week’s shot of the day from USA Network. When Michelle Wie’s approach shot on 18 landed inches from the cup during second round play of the John Deere Classic, she became the first woman whose shot was accorded a “Just for Men” commercial sponsorship as part of their "Shot of the Day".

Hmmmmm.....

Interesting to see TNT promoting their corporate-run website, pga.com, in addition to the obligatory promotion of the British Open website, openchampionship.com. Someone had their negotiating cap on to get that in the contract.

While Mr. Nicklaus is retiring, is there any doubt we're going to be living in Michelle Wie's world soon? She continued to beat up on the U.S. best amateurs in the country at the U.S. Amateur Public Links, until running into BYU junior Clay Ogden in the quarters, beating the teenager 5-and-4.

Mr. Hootie Johnson, you can breathe now.

Finally, Tiger Woods and Colin Montgomerie in the final twosome on Saturday? Apologies to the rest of the field, and Mr. Montgomerie (who called Mr. Woods' first-round lead "ominous"), but unless the weather kicks up and kicks Mr. Woods' ball into many of the most famous and well-named bunkers on earth, might as well start etching his name on the Claret Jug now.

All-iss clear

2005-07-14T14:36:00.000-04:00

Perhaps it's because he's on loan to TNT for early round coverage of the British Open, but ABC's (and the BBC's) Peter Alliss was in fine form during the morning's coverage. Ensuring he won't be invited to be the speaker at PGA TOUR commissioner Tim Finchem's next Players Championship party, Mr. Alliss referred to some of today's touring golf pros as "crybabies" who seem to have lost touch with the fact that they are well compensated for hitting a little white ball around the golf course. He then added, "well, some of them are scuffling along on 2 million dollars a year....."

Ouch.

He also dug up this interesting little nugget: saying he was looking at some documents from 1821, he said the Old Course measured at a hair over 6,300 yards that year. If expansion had continued at the same pace over the last 180 years or so, the course would be playing at just over 9,100 yards! His summation? "Boy, wouldn't the boys be crying about that?!"

If he thinks the players would be upset about that, imagine the wail from course designers. Evolution? There's no evolution, just a patentedly self-absorbed cry to bring back the good old days.

1821, anyone?

History lesson

2005-07-13T12:19:00.000-04:00

From the Associated Press' website: "The founding of The Associated Press dates from May 1848, when Hale’s efforts culminated in a meeting of ten men representing six New York newspaper publishers in the offices of The New York Sun. An agreement was reached to pool efforts for collecting international news, and to offset the prohibitive cost of the telegraph. Horace Greeley, founding editor of the New York Tribune, was also a founder of The AP."

Traditionally, the A.P. is a news source utilized by papers, television and radio to augment their local coverage. Historically, it was very much a "just the facts" type of journalistic endeavor, but like the direction of nearly all journalism today, a significant part of the A.P.'s "coverage" is opinion-based. This is true for sports as it is for news.

This history lesson brought to you by......

The A.P. has "beat" writers for each sport, and when you've covered a sport for years, the "just the facts" approach probably becomes a bit stale, and more opinion becomes injected into the coverage.

Doug Ferguson, who covers professional golf (PGA TOUR, Majors, etc.) for the A.P., is by all accounts an excellent writer, but one who isn't afraid to lace his writing with jabs at the powers that be, whether it's the PGA TOUR hierarchy, one of golf's governing bodies, or a player.

Covering the British Open in St. Andrews this week, Mr. Ferguson signed up for his own history lesson on the evolution of golf, a history lesson we all need to take from time to time. The Seattle Times picked up his notebook package, which led with Mr. Ferguson's trip to the British Golf Museum near the Old Course. Noting that the Royal & Ancient added 164 yards to five holes for this year's Open, Ferguson writes: "For those alarmed by adding yardage to such a historic track, perhaps they should wander across the street to the British Golf Museum. One exhibit contains the rubber-core Haskell golf ball, which phased out the gutta percha — which came from a tree substance — and was all the rage at the turn of the 20th century."

Mr. Ferguson then describes a situation that is being played out today, but actually happened a hundred years ago, and actually was probably repeated several times in golf's first 500 years:

"The Royal & Ancient was so worried about how far players were hitting the Haskell that it lengthened the Old Course and added pot bunkers to protect against low scores. It must have worked, for there were only a dozen scores below 80 and James Braid won that 1905 British Open at 318, the highest winning score in 10 years.

One hundred years later, people are still talking about tradition and technology.

'It's just evolution' Stuart Appleby said. "It wasn't long ago everyone was playing in tweed jackets and ties." Traditionalists made a passionate case for the gutta percha to be the standard ball for championship golf. Alas, the R&A declined to outlaw the Haskell because it seemed to make the game easier and more enjoyable for the majority of players. Ultimately, it helped make golf more popular. Now, the R&A is simply keeping up with the times."

A well-learned history lesson indeed.

Major week and whine

2005-07-11T18:58:00.000-04:00

The Monday of a major week, in this case the British Open, is always one of the best Mondays of the year. The world's best players, playing on courses you and I will probably never get to play, battling the weather (especially in the British), the course, their nerves.

It's also become one of the most tiring Mondays of the year, as that's when pro golf heavyweights-turned-golf-club-builders-and-golf-course-developers hit the media circuit, decrying that today's golf ball is ruining the game of golf.

From Jack Nicklaus in the scotsman.com, who is taking his "final" tour around the Old Course this week: "In 2000 everyone considered Tiger the longest hitter out there. Well, he's not any more. And Tiger is 25 yards longer than he was in 2000, thanks to the golf ball. So how many more guys are going to make the course obsolescent. Will it stand up to the golfers of today? Maybe it will wake the R&A up, make them realise the game is not the same game, the golf ball is way out of bounds."

As I noted in an earlier post, "Wondrous week. Maybe not", ".... here’s what Mr. Nicklaus' Golf Equipment company promotes on his website, about their new drivers: “AIRMAX ML DRIVERS, available in 380cc and 440cc heads crafted in forged CRYOGENIC SUPERBETA TITANIUM are designed to help golfers of all levels add distance by increasing their launch angle and decreasing spin. Increased launch angle translates to extra carry and distance while airborne.”

It's never a good thing to quote yourself, but necessary in this case. According to Mr. Nicklaus, using technology so your golf clubs make the ball go farther is a good thing, but using technology to make a ball go farther is bad?

Greg Norman performs a similar backflip. In a self-penned article in Travel and Leisure Golf, Mr. Norman now advocates bifurcation: "In my opinion, the game of golf should have two standards for balls: One for professionals and another for amateurs."

As a club maker, following that logic, shouldn't we have two standards for clubs? One for professionals and another for amateurs? We've all seen his television ads for MacGregor, where he looks into the camera and says, "It's (the MACTEC driver) added 15 yards to my drives, and I was blown away."

So, logically, Mr. Norman should ask MacGregor to start designing and producing two types of clubs - one for the pros, and one for the amateurs. I guess he'll let the powers that be at MacGregor figure out which clubs the top amateurs get to play.

The reason why Mr. Norman and Mr. Nicklaus are picking on the golf ball, and not course developers or club makers/endorsers, is because that would hurt their bottom line. And isn't that what it's all about?

I can't wait until Thursday, when we actually get to watch golf.

Yardologists

2005-07-08T09:57:00.000-04:00

Don’t know what to make of the latest installment from “Gorjus” George Lucas, Sports Illustrated’s resident “yardologist”. In the mag’s British Open preview (worth calling it a day to read cover to cover), the piece, titled, “Is Nothing Sacred?”, reviews the changes made to the Old Course at St. Andrews.

Mr. Lucas has been making the PGA TOUR player’s yardage books since 1976, so suffice to say he’s gotten a good look at a 30 year snapshot in the 400 plus-year timeline in the evolution of golf.

If he thinks the Royal & Ancient has committed the ultimate sin, upgrading and adding length to the Old Course, you couldn’t tell.

In fact, he seems quite positive about the upgrade. Describing the 43 yards added behind the old tee on the second hole to make the new tee, Mr. Lucas writes the distance “transform(s) the hole frm a ho-hummer into a little devil.”

For hole 12, Mr. Lucas writes, “Before the 12th was lengthened by 37 yards, it was the most routine hole on the course. Now it presents an array of options and requires precise thinking and execution.”

And he writes that the supposed “big” changes on 14 aren’t so “big” after all. The R&A is claiming that the par-5 is now 618 yards, 37 yards longer than it was when Mr. Lucas measured it in 2000. But according to his measurements, it’s only 605 yards. And he writes of the 14th, “….which I think is one of the best par-5’s on earth.”

If Mr. Lucas feels that the changes to the Old Course are ruinous, or deviate from the centuries old evolution of the sport, it’s hard to tell.

Fazio - form, or function?

2005-07-08T02:34:00.000-04:00

In the never-ending catch up of reading (am I the only one who gets to magazines and newspapers days and weeks and sometimes months after they arrive?), I stumbled across a profile of the biggest name in golf course architecture Tom Fazio, by Golf Digest’s Architecture Editor Ron Whitten.

Don’t misunderstand, features on Tom Fazio seem to be as prevalent as his golf courses, but what makes this one stand out are the frequent honest and hard-hitting assessments by the author and by Mr. Fazio himself.

For example: “Golfers ultimately pay for the perfection of a Tom Fazio design in six-digit membership fees to private courses and three-digit green fees to public ones. That has certainly contributed to the inflation of golf that started in the mid-1990s and has remained on the rise even as the U.S. economy has sputtered.”

What? I thought it was today’s golf ball that has single-dimpledly pushed greens fees, design fees and membership fees?

The story continues by pointing out the various eye-popping price tags on Mr. Fazio designed courses, $37 million for Shadow Creek in Vegas, $30 million to fix Dallas National. And points out that Mr. Fazio’s designs may be artistic works, but are not substantive, according to the owners of the courses designed by him.

One of the knocks against Mr. Fazio’s designs are that only one of his courses has been tabbed to host a major, that he designs for the majority who play golf, not the professional few.

The author, Mr. Whitten, sums up his piece with a rare bit of criticism for his bosses and Mr. Fazio, lamenting that with rising prices to play golf and participation dropping (ever so slightly), Mr. Fazio’s costly designs conspiring with magazines like Golf Digest that list so many of his courses in their “America’s 100 Greatest” list (a designation that holds immeasurable value), the cycle of rising expense continues.

I use the word rare often – but the admission by Mr. Whitten and a magazine as influential as Golf Digest digging in to the reasons behind the spiraling costs of golf, without taking the easy way out and just blaming it on the ball – is rare indeed.

Coming of age - just depends on which one

2005-07-07T13:06:00.000-04:00

With the news from the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel that 17-year-old amateur sensation Morgan Pressel has petitioned the LPGA to waive its age restriction of 18, so that she can play in qualifying school this fall in an attempt to join the LPGA Tour as a full member at the start of next season, shines the spotlight on the inequities of young athletes and the professional sports of their choosing.

Departing LPGA Tour commissioner Ty Votaw told Ms. Pressel that he'll make a ruling in the next two weeks. In a rare bit of disclosure, commissioner Votaw told the Sun-Sentinel there isn't consistent, by-the-book criteria in deciding who gets a waiver and who doesn't: "Votaw has sole authority in making the decision. He said the decision is subjective, made on a case-by-case basis with no black-and-white rules to gauge a candidate's worthiness." (Another obvious inequity is why commissioner Votaw is making this ruling solo, when he is departing, and the new LPGA commissioner, Carolyn Bivens, who hasn't officially started yet but is scheduled to start at the end of July, whose mandate is to use every available tool to raise the profile, profits and perception of the LPGA Tour, isn't a part of the decision-making process - a further look at another time.)

Coming just weeks after the NBA raised its minimum age standard to 20, age requirements in more mainstream sports are highlighting the inequities in all professional sports that have been commonplace for decades. There was, and still is, much gnashing of teeth over the NBA's decision, from the media, sports fans, and of course, college basketball coaches.
The motivation behind the NBA raising its age limit? "Because we're a sport that's very popular and easily accessible, there's going to be tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of 10-year-olds thinking they are the next Sebastian Telfair or LeBron James,'' Stern said in a recently released book The Jump: Sebastian Telfair and the High Stakes Business of High School Ball, by Ian O'Connor. "And I just don't feel great about being associated with that.''

For Maurice Clarett, the former running back who led Ohio State to the NCAA Championship in 2003, who sued the NFL in the fall of 2003 regarding the league's rule against players entering the NFL Draft before they have been out of high school for three years, (notice how the NFL didn't put an age requirement in the legal language; by stating an athlete had to be three years removed from high school, they avoided saying they had an "age" standard) if he'd been a basketball player at OSU, he would have been eligible to earn a living in the NBA at that time.

If he'd been a soccer player, he'd have been eligible to play in the MLS (heck, he may not have even had to attend high school, as at age 14 prodigy Freddy Adu was chosen by DC United and is now the highest paid player in the league). Reaching 14 would also mean reaching the minimum age requirement for the ATP and the WTA.

To be an Olympian, representing your country, you need to turn 16 at some point during the calendar year of the Olympics in which you participate.

To be clear, Ms. Pressel could play professional soccer, tennis, represent her country in the Olympics and play junior hockey.

What is unclear, is how an athlete at 18 can play Major League Baseball, skate in the National Hockey League, fight for the U.S. in a war, legally drive a car and buy tobacco products, but not buy alcohol, play in the NBA or the NFL.

It's also unclear how an amateur golfer can petition the LPGA commissioner to waive their minimum age requirement of 18, with no set criteria.

Clearly, coming of age in professional sports is not necessarily based on your age.

Thomson speaks out

2005-07-06T20:21:00.000-04:00

GolfWeek's "Our Take" is a profile of legendary golfer Peter Thomson's new book, "Inspirations and Insights from Australia's Greatest Golfer," (no the sub-title of the book is not "Take that, Greg Norman!) by Rob Vanderzalm.

According to the reporter, Mr. Thomson writes about the way Australian golf clubs are addicted to making changes to their courses: "Here in Australia clubs spend to surpass each other in shrugging off the sartorial tradition of the past, to replace it with a white mantle of newness.....In some cases there is no substantial reason for reconstruction other than to keep up with the trend"

What makes this noteworthy is Mr. Thomson has been a golf course designer, in Australia, Europe and southeast Asia for over 20 years. Ripping the reconstruction of perfectly fine golf courses flies in the face of development-for-dollars mentality, especially from such a golf luminary as Peter Thomson. That doesn't mean, as the reporter points out, Mr. Thomson is against all change: "While Thomson is critical of change, especially at some of Australia's premier courses, he doesn't discredit the need for modifications completely. He points to the increase in housing around courses and environmental issues as a major reason for reconstructions to be undertaken. 'Not all upgrades are in vain,' he says. 'Some are born out of necessity. New suburban developments are encroaching and balls are flying over fences, into houses and streets. Drainage problems arise as surrounding pavements run their rainwater into fairways. Fairways and greens suffer health problems from the overgrowth of plantations of trees. And so on.'

But Mr. Thomson made his name as a great golfer, so the fact that he points out, in such clear fashion, that rampant reconstruction of courses in Australia to possibly host one "TOUR-type" event each year, hurts the far greater multitudes of everyday players who can't enjoy the "TOUR-type" set up: "It is a shock to most members to watch their 18 holes overwhelmed with scores in the low 60s, so it is decided that something must be done. There are a number of advisors in the matter of toughening up the course, and the advice will come down to the search for Tiger tees further back, together with a pattern of bunkering to thwart the professional onslaught. Greens must be guarded so that any approach other than a high pitched shot must be accommodated. Bunker advice will stipulate serious depth and steep faces. Size is another weapon against the buccaneers. One nationally famous course now has more than two hectares of sand within its boundaries."

"The loser in all this is the legion of high-handicap golfers who make up the vast majority of members. And the new players with them."

Do you think any of the American golf icons turned golf course designers would ever go on record saying the same thing?

Hank Haney on Tiger

2005-07-05T02:33:00.000-04:00

Surprising, and rare, interview with Tiger Woods' golf coach, Hank Haney in the Chicago Sun-Times - surprising because those in Mr. Woods' inner circle aren't prone to giving interviews to the press, and rare because the interview revealed some keen insight into Mr. Woods' game, and the state of the game.

Reporter Jim O'Connell provides a detailed look at how the "partnership" of Mr. Woods and Mr. Haney came to be, Mr. Haney's career path and some of his former pupils that have gone on to great success. Mr. O'Connell also goes into significant detail explaining Mr. Haney's teaching methods, his theory on the "swing plane" (there is only one from the backswing to the follow-through) and how that theory and the impact his teaching methods have had on some of his most successful pupils.

But the quotes that leap off the page speak to the style of game played on the PGA TOUR (and not many other places) today: "What Haney's suggestions have done is increase Woods' already-formidable distance off the tees. But that also has led to more erratic drive placement, a consequence that was to be expected and easily can be addressed by Woods' solid iron play and superb short game, Haney said. ''The biggest criticism that won't go away right now is about Tiger's driving accuracy,'' Haney said. ''They always want to point that out on TV. But the thing is, the game of golf today, at the top professional levels, has changed so much in the past 10 years. And none of the commentators who are on TV played the game as it is now by the top players."

For anyone to contend that something other than the "power game" is the game of choice for the elite players on the PGA TOUR, you probably haven't been watching a lot of the PGA TOUR. This is the first article I've seen (granted, I have not seen them all) that has noted Mr. Woods' distance increase off the tee this year. Mr. Woods' is averaging 309.4 yards off the tee in 2005, after averaging 301.9 in 2004 and 299 in 2003. His driving accuracy has decreased in inverse order (as you'd expect) since 2003: 62.7%, 56.1% in 2004, 55.5% this year.

Now, the USGA hasn't changed the ball specifications in that time span, but Mr. Woods has increased his driver clubhead size (within USGA specs) since 2003, and he's been working with Mr. Haney during this time. "Every time you increase your distance, you decrease your accuracy. And no one seems to mention the fact that Tiger has added 15 to 20 yards [on his drives] in the last year and a half'' Mr. Haney told the Sun-Times.

Seems that Mr. Haney is making a correlation to the swing theories he teaches and the increased distance in ball flight. Add a bigger driver clubhead, and Mr. Woods' body strength, and that's a recipe for crushing the ball. Which is exactly what Mr. Woods is doing.

Designer wrath

2005-07-01T13:22:00.000-04:00

If you're standing any where near GolfWeek's Jeff Rude, you may want to take several steps back, and cease all contact with him.

Mr. Rude had the audacity to point out, in his notebook from the Western Open, that Augusta National's recent announcement of another lengthening renovation, will mean just the longest of the longest hitters on TOUR will have a chance to win the Masters.

Instead of making the course longer, Mr. Rude has a suggestion for Augusta National:
"There's one primary way to create a level playing field and to keep bombers from dominating. That would be the growing of rough. (See the Players Championship and U.S. Open.) Until the Masters grows rough, it will play into the hands of sluggers."

Heresy!

Not only will the mere suggestion of this get some of the golf course design purists up in arms, but Mr. Rude may have just forfeited any opportunity to interview Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer or Gary Player in the future.

I stand corrected

2005-07-01T11:42:00.000-04:00

All these months of asking, pleading and down-on-my knees begging for any evidence, even a shred of evidence, from those that have declared the game of golf in ruins, and it finally appeared.

When I first saw the headline several weeks back, about some proposed changes at the old course, St. Andrews, I just assumed that it meant that the Royal & Ancient was pushing for alterations to ensure that the when the British Open is played there, the course meets everyone's expectations.

But alas, it's not just some updating we're talking about - oh no, this is kind of news that those who decry the coming of golf's demise will seize upon - and I can't blame them. This breaking news bulletin forces me to admit the proof is in the pudding (not black pudding - that's Irish), and that if something isn't done immediately, the very landscape of St. Andrews, the birthplace of golf, will forever be, well, ruined.

The news comes from the venerable Scotsman.com: "One month after its launch, Model Caddies, which employs beautiful female students in place of grizzled weather-beaten males, has received just one booking. The company, which draws its staff from students who strutted down the catwalk in front of Prince William, charge £55 per round, £20 more than the most experienced caddy on the Old Course."

Egads!

Models for caddies? Old Tom must surely be turning in his grave! I expect the news to fire up all those bloggers crusading to bring back the niblick, the featherie and returning the Old Course to its original 22 hole design.

Making the whole thing worse (if that's possible), turns out the Model Caddies only booking to date was an American group.........

Slow march

2005-06-29T17:38:00.000-04:00

From today's edition of the Charlotte Observer (registration required), an article that speaks to the concern of a great deal of the 27 million golfers in this country, focusing on a subject that resonates far deeper with the golfing public.

Maybe you can guess by reading the sub-head of the article: "Excruciatingly slow play is biggest impediment to golf's growth"

What? It's not the golf ball's fault?

Authored by news reporter, and weekend golfer, Michael Gordon, he details the frustrations we've all felt while enduring an endless round, and assigns blame to a few different guilty parties: "Part of it, of course, is the developer's fault, designing holes so far from each other that you need MapQuest to reach the next tee. Part of it falls to the companies that pack their courses like a purse, ignore the backups of waiting golfers and then declare a 4 1/2-hour round normal."

With all the saber rattling from above the heads of the more than 13 million core golfers (golfers who play at least eight rounds per year) in this country (USGA asking for prototype balls from manufacturers that travel less distance, Augusta National has to be lengthened, the game is in ruins, etc.), it would seem one of the seeds of growth for the game lies in Mr. Gordon's commentary. Something so simple and so basic, it's almost too obvious.

So perhaps it make sense to spend research money on ways to speed up the game. If 18 holes of golf on a Saturday or Sunday were to take only three and a half hours, instead of four and a half to five (or more), wouldn't more people be inclined to go out and play?

A fair question. One that deserves a research-based response.

Coincidence?

2005-06-29T14:12:00.000-04:00

When any organization, especially a governing body, makes changes in the executive ranks, the pundit stampede to analyze and dissect "what it all means" brings to mind the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona, Spain.

Wild flailing, stumbling, crashing and the occasional goring.

However.....

GolfWeek's scoop Tuesday on the changes to the USGA Executive Committee, where three changes were announced, (interestingly enough, about seven months before any changes would normally be announced) that would seemingly have little effect on the 27 million golfers in this country.

On further review, the changes, conspiring with a breaking news bulletin out of Augusta National, may portend more agenda driving by those feel the game is in ruins.

Of the three new nominees to the USGA Executive Committee, one is a real estate developer (and the real estate play is the motivation behind the inexorable push to build more and more golf courses, for eye-popping dollar amounts, the cost of which, of course, will be passed on to the consumer), and one is a golf course architect (the necessary ingredient for the real estate developers in building more courses).

The most vociferous barkers of the "game is in ruins" mantra seem to be golf course architects and those former players who are now in the real estate/course development business.

As GolfWeek points out, the outgoing president of the USGA Fred Ridley, the man that's next in line for the presidency, Walter Driver, and the man who will succeed Driver, Jim Reinhart, are all members of Augusta National Golf Club.

Augusta National chairman Hootie Johnson, who has been emphatic in his calls for reigning in the current golf ball (single-mindedly asserting that only the golf ball, not the clubs, the players, the course conditions or the ability for club makers to custom fit players, is the reason TOUR players are achieving great distances off the tee), also announced Tuesday, that Augusta National will be lengthened to 7,445 yards for the 2006 Masters.

Coincidence?

If so, that would make two incredible coincidences in the last few months. Remember, after Mr. Johnson made headlines throughout Masters week for his comments about the need to "do something about the golf ball", and the Monday after the Masters, it was reported that the USGA had sent a letter that day to all golf ball manufacturers, inviting them "to provide the governing body with prototype golf balls that comply with modified rules that would reduce maximum golf distance by 15 or 25 yards".

Pew Research Center study

2005-06-28T09:21:00.000-04:00

It's taken a bit of time to fully digest the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, released Sunday. Not only are the results worth the read, the different ways newspapers and television outlets framed the results were interesting as well.

Some topline points:

* The general public is able to discern bias, and non-bias, in reporting (this is especially heartwarming, as although I believe strongly in never underestimating your audience, it's hard not to notice the apathy of Americans to opinion, agenda-driven "reporting" in the media).

* Public attitudes toward the press, for many years on a down slope, are getting more negative in fairly important areas (naturally, this point didn't make many headlines). In 1980, 88% of those surveyed gave a "favorability" rating to the mainstream media, 80% gave a "credible" rating to mainstream media outlets. In 2005, 80% give a "favorability" rating, but only 54% give a "credible" rating. A key point here is that by giving a "favorability" rating, that means those surveyed still were able to get what they wanted out of that particular outlet. For example, with cable news, getting timely news updates and breaking news updates is what they wanted and got.

* Most Americans continue to claim that they like mainstream news outlets (naturally, this point made most of the headlines).

* "The favorable ratings for most categories of news organizations surpass positive ratings for President Bush and major political institutions the Supreme Court, Congress, and the two major political parties." This was surprising, as I'd have bet quite a bit that the media had fallen farther in the public eye. I know, lower than politicians?

* Internet news usage saw growth across the age spectrum, not just limited to a younger audience.

* 72% claim news organizations pick one side of the political aisle over the other, instead of covering and treating each side fairly. According to the report, that is the largest number ever expressing that view.

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which co-sponsored the poll, summed up the report thusly: “The message isn’t that people are rejecting traditional journalism, but they wish people in the news practiced traditional journalism better.”

2 to 1

2005-06-27T19:55:00.000-04:00

Whenever the cry of "the sport (golf) is in ruins" is heard, it is usually followed by very few shreds of evidence. One source/shred that is often cited, is the venerable National Golf Foundation. Founded in 1936, the NGF focuses on "providing relevant information and insights on the business of golf."

NGF's latest report was quoted in Golfdom, and while Golfdom is one of my favorite reads, they too are guilty of leaving out information which would provide a more well-rounded analysis of NGF's latest report. The report, to which many that proclaim the game in ruination cite, is quoted thusly: "The total number of adult golfers dropped 3.9 percent, from 28.4 million in 2003 to 27.3 million in 2004, according to the National Golf Foundation. The NGF also reported that the number of core golfers — those playing at least eight annual rounds — was 12.8 million in 2004, representing a 4.7 percent decrease from 13.4 million in 2003."

So I went to the NGF site, and found the press release of the report Golfdom is quoting. Here's a quote from the president of the NGF, and you can see why those crying ruination don't include it in their "reporting": “The number of Core golfers has been essentially flat for the past four years,” says NGF president Joe Beditz. “Given the statistical margin of error around these numbers, we don’t put too much emphasis on one-year variations in participation. What we can say is that the number of Core golfers is more than it was 10 years ago, but less than five years ago.”

While participants and participation is flat, one would expect new course development would be non-existent. What makes me think otherwise, is the lotto-like financial numbers attached to each new new course/real estate development headline in the news. New course devleopment near Madison, Wis.? $165 million. A proposed golf resort in French Lick (can you actually see or say that and not think Larry Bird?) Ind.? $240 million. And of course, Liberty National Golf Club in New York/New Jersey $130 million, just for the course and facility!

But, NGF's research shows that: "Including the 2004 openings, the total number of U.S. golf facilities stands at 16,057, thus breaking the 16,000 mark for the first time. Adjusting for 9-hole and 18-hole-plus facilities, there were 14,988 18-hole equivalents at year’s end. The data show that the number of new courses being built has decreased every year since 2000. In 2004, there were 150.5 course openings and 62.5 verified closures (in 18-hole equivalents), for a net gain of 88 courses, representing a net increase of approximately one-half of one percent. The 2005 forecast is for 150-160 18-hole equivalent course openings. In contrast, nearly 400 18-hole equivalents opened in 2000."

If I'm understanding correctly, participation is flat (or possibly down a slim slim margin) over last year, but for every golf course that closed, two new ones opened.

I do not have an MBA, but does that make sense?

This week's sign?

2005-06-25T09:07:00.000-04:00

One of the most entertaining elements of Sports Illustrated, is the "This week's sign of the apocolypse" segment in Scorecard.

But perhaps they got their "signs"mixed up. How else to explain this entry in "For the Record", quoting long-time Wimbledon referee Alan Mills, who is requesting that tennis officials (I guess he means executives of the WTA) shut down the "grunts and shrieks" from several female players on tour. "Many of the nongrunting players are unhappy about the noise pollution" the story quoted Mills.

I remember this was an issue when Monica Seles, back in the early 1990's, was challenging Steffi Graf for dominance on the WTA, and Ms. Graf complained quite vehemently about how Seles' grunting was distracting her.

I thought at the time that it was an absurd claim. Now the top-ranked woman in the world, Maria Sharapova, is classified as a "grunter", and she's actually talked of trying to stop.

Evidently, the complaints come from two places: first, the other players feel it's distracting their game. Ok, can you imagine if Shaq or Michael Jordan got thrown out of a game, or punished with a foul or something if the sound they made while dunking upset a player on the other team? Heck, just think of all the trash talking that goes on in the NFL, the NBA and the NHL (when they play) - and that is done on purpose, with purpose.

But tennis players grunting on a backhand, done to mess with their opponent? According to one story, Sharapova has already been warned.

The second group of grunt complainers are television viewers - according to some in tennis and at the networks - who find the grunts distracting or annoying. While I am sure that the executives who run the WTA and the executives who run the networks want to sustain as high a rated program as possible, at what point do you say to people annoyed with, of all things, the sound of an athlete in action, to change the channel if they don't like it?

Heavy Metal (piece)

2005-06-24T19:20:00.000-04:00

A couple of interesting pieces in this week's Sports Illustrated - and we'll touch on one now and one later.

Classifying two pieces in SI's "Scorecard" section isn't completely accurate. There are many interesting pieces in this week's edition, but interesting as in:

Hmmmm..........

Under the header "Metal Fatigue", the Scorecard editors profile how "less livelier bats are making it tougher for college hitters to reach the fences". The piece states that the national average for homers is 1.36 per game, the lowest average since the NCAA started recording dingers, and scoring, 12.38 per game (I'm assuming they mean combined scoring, but maybe not, the report doesn't say) is down some 13% since 1998, also the first recorded year.

Steroids are not the cause, the report says, but rather just rules changes instituted by the NCAA. The governing body "mandated that the difference betwewen a bat's length and weight couldn't exceend three - a 34-incher can't weigh less than 31 ounces - and capping exit speeds at around 97 mph."

The piece wraps by stating that home runs in the college world series are at their lowest levels since 1990.

This bears a striking resemblence to the COR (coefficient of restitution) issue that led to the USGA capping the "springboard" effect of golf clubs back in the fall of 2002 at .o83, after a debate with the R & A about possibly raising it to .086. Tiger Woods was one of a few players on the PGA TOUR who were "concerned" about his competitors using "hot" drivers (drivers that exceeded the .083 COR), so the TOUR came up with a test machine, that travelled to each TOUR stop, so players and the like could get their clubs tested, if they so desired, to make sure they were within the rules.

Both the USGA/R&A and the NCAA rule helped standardize the equipment, but that does not mean strength of the person swinging the bat/driver isn't a major factor. As the SI piece states, check out the replay of the monster homer that Florida' s Matt LaPorta hit against Tennessee - hitting it far is still possible.

The other point of interest, is that the focus was on the club, er, bat. The quest for "balance", as one NCAA official termed it, was important.

Balanced research. Balanced reporting?

Another brick in the wall

2005-06-22T20:55:00.000-04:00

As we've seen in recent years, and even more so lately, the blurring, or simple exclusion of facts in reporting by the news media, has provided an already skeptical public motivation to lump journalists and reporters in the same boat (the name of the boat is "Credibilty Lacking") as used car salesmen and personal injury lawyers.

Unfortunately, the news media (that include sports, weather, and business) aren't the only ones sinking aboard the good ship Credibility Lacking - turns out "Reality TV" isn't so much reality after all.

Back in 2001, when the Reality TV genre started to explode, with hits like MTV's "Real World" and CBS' "Survivor", the network brass were positively giddy about these new shows, because not only did they deliver great ratings, they also were cheap, because there were no actors (it's reality, after all!) and there were no writers, because these real people were using their own words. At least, that's what we were told.

In fact, TV execs were so eager to tell reporters about how their show costs would decrease with reality tv, and that their profits would soar with such low overhead, that the Writers Guild of America threatened to strike, upset at the potential for fewer jobs for their union membership, and wanting higher residual fees on programming that were hitting more platforms than ever before (syndication, dvd's, international, home video, etc.) .

As reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer back in 2001: "Viewers are already seeing a sample of inexpensive, unscripted reality series such as Survivor and The Mole that could dominate network prime-time schedules during a strike. And for years after that." Not only was the WGA worried, network executives were fueling the fire as well: "Development of unscripted reality series also has been shoved into high gear at all networks. “Everybody has a lot more reality in development, which is not union-dependent,” says CBS Television President Les Moonves."
"If reality shows like Temptation Island, The Mole, Love Cruise or The Runner are huge hits, inexpensive unscripted shows could supplant scripted dramas and sitcoms from the prime-time landscape the way news magazines gobbled up time slots in the 1990s."

Sounded like a pretty dire situation; with all the reality tv programming, who needs writers?

Evidently the reality tv shows.

The Associated Press reported today, via the Charlotte Observer that, well, the reality shows are not so, realistic: "The Writers Guild of America is demanding that companies that produce shows such as "The Apprentice" and "Supernanny" provide union wages and benefits to people who sift through hundreds of hours of footage to craft story lines."

"They want to keep the fiction that it's not written so they don't have to pay us what they pay fiction writers," said Rebecca Hertz, a 28-year-old writer who has worked on shows such as "The Swan" on Fox and "Big Man on Campus" on the WB."
"Unlike a sitcom or drama, a reality show doesn't often employ "writers." Instead, people with titles such a "field producer" or "story producer" make sure each episode follows a script that's often conceived in advance."

Perhaps the most surprising element of this deception, is that it remained a secret in Hollywood for four years.

Hindsight

2005-06-21T20:46:00.000-04:00

After any major, it's always important to have a day or two to assess the "hindsight" that filters out from players, critics and the media.

Having taken a beating by players, critics and the media last year for course setup of Shinnecock Hills, the USGA is getting a comparitively warm hug from players and the media. The critics are still, well, being critical, but that's what they do, whether the facts support their criticisms or not.

The critics take issue with the USGA's penchant for having what a lot of the courses played on the PGA TOUR don't have - rough that is, rough. Tall and thick, the U.S. Open setups actually have the grass that grows off both sides of the fairway fit the definition of "rough".

Ernie Els, who shot 80 on Sunday at Shinnecock, had this to say the Raleigh News and Observer
"It was a great test of golf," Els said. "The course was in great shape. It was very firm today, the firmest it's been all week. It's a very tough design, even for modern equipment." Perhaps it is possible to set up a course specific to the level of skill of the players playing it? If the U.S. Amateur were played on Pinehurst No. 2, or the women's U.S. Open were played on Pinehurst No. 2, the course would not be set up the exact same way, since there are three distinct skill levels in play.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported similar comments from players: "I thought it was a great Open," Sergio Garcia said. "It's a really difficult course, but it was well set up. Maybe, today, a couple of mistakes they might have made. But, it was well set up all week long. It was really nice." And two-time U.S. Open winner Lee Janzen, "The USGA and everyone should be happy about the play for four straight days ...the greens played as consistently as I've seen them play in any U.S. Open I've ever played. It was very fair and very challenging."

Even an amateur player, Matt Every, while not loving the course, realized that accuracy has a place in the game, ".....I like how you had to hit it in the fairway, or you got penalized. I thought that was great. It tests all areas of the game."

The most surprising reflection emanating in the last couple of days is this piece by Michael Grange in the Toronto Globe and Mail - many in the media have annointed today's golf ball as the devil incarnate, but Mr. Grange profiles a PGA TOUR player who he describes as a throwback, 2004 British Open winner Todd Hamilton. Mr. Grange's reporting points to the very real possibility that all is not wrong in golf. Quoting Mr. Hamilton, who points out, in regards to technology's affect on the game, "Handicaps aren't really going down. Records aren't being broken every week."

"You still have to get the ball in the hole."

Random Sampling pt.II

2005-06-20T10:12:00.000-04:00

After watching the best players in the world battle Pinehurst No. 2 at the 2005 U. S. Open, the appearance of the course number would seem the only time that a player had a 2 on their scorecard. And walking the course seems to prove the conventional wisdom: that the course itself doesn’t look that intimidating – until you have to hit an approach shot, then successfully execute your putt.

I sat next to Tom from north Florida on the shuttle back to the parking lot on Saturday. He said he’s played Pinehurst No. 2 about 15 times, and each time he plays it, he walks off the course having learned something new. One of the several things I asked him, was if advancements in technology have inhibited or curtailed his desire to play or watch golf, “No, I play when family priorities are satisfied, and I watch when there is a great field and I have the time”.

Sandy from Charlotte plays once a month, and watches the PGA TOUR whenever she can. Mother of three, she seemed genuinely amused at the “debate” about golf technology. Not because of the way I was describing how some think the game of golf is in ruins, but because there was a debate at all. Her astonishment peaked when she said, “I can’t believe that there’s really a lot time being spent on this” From her perspective, the fact that her kids have access to play a game her father did not, that golf is more open now than it has ever been, bodes well for the future of the sport.

Robert from Atlanta, who has gone to the TOUR Championship every year it’s been in his hometown, was completely unaware of the debate. Altogether. He said he just enjoys watching players play at the highest level, and trying to improve his game. He said he didn’t have time for any of the “debate”.

What does this completely unscientific survey prove? Absolutely nothing. Was the feedback telling? No doubt. At the Open, for the average fan, this all is happening far above the tree tops - their passion for the game doesn't make them oblivious to what is going on, they just don't think there is a problem.

Random sampling pt. I

2005-06-19T13:43:00.000-04:00

From the elderly motoring on electronic mini-carts around Pinehurst No. 2, to toddlers motoring around in carriages dependent on parent power, waves of humanity washed over the sand surrounding fairways and greens, as the best players in the world chased the U.S. Open title.

A disgruntled patron, at least for the first three rounds I attended, was difficult to find. Sure, there was some grumbling over the long lines for the shuttle bus Saturday morning, and some mumbling for those in the queue for early morning beer at the concessions stand, but that was it.

The multitudes provided an opportunity to check on how the average fan (no time was spent in any of the hospitality tents) felt about the game of golf, from both the perspective of their game, and the game that is the professional tours.

Without much effort, I engaged nearly 50 fans (47 to be exact), and two themes stood out: first, how knowledgeable and passionate they are about the game of golf, (not surprising) and second, how surprised they were to hear that the game of golf is in ruins.

Granted, talking to people that spent their hard-earned money, and traveled sizable distances to attend (if you’ve never been to Pinehurst, trust me when I say there is no population crisis going on there – and that’s the way the locals like it) the U.S. Open are not going to be first in the “complaint” line.

However, that is perhaps what made the second theme even more surprising – when people spend good money, and considerable travel is involved, those two facts often conspire to provide a fertile “bitching” ground – these people had, especially in today’s entitlement society, ample reasons to complain.

But they didn’t.

Take Gary from Aiken, South Carolina. He’s been to every Masters since 1962, closely following the careers of the modern legends of the game, from Palmer, Player and Nicklaus to Watson, Irwin and Kite, to Woods, Els and Mickelson. Gary and his friends were taking a week off from work, staying in Hilton Head, playing a round in the morning and hitting the Open in the afternoon. After talking about his game, and his love for the game, I asked what he thought of the claim that technology was “ruining the game”. Without hesitating, Gary said, “I love technology! It gets more youngsters into the game, because the advancements have made the game more fun to play.”

But, I asked, aren’t you worried that “fun” means it’s easier to play? “Are you kidding me? I’ve been playing the game for 40 some years – I’ve never gotten below a handicap in the high teens – if it’s easier now, no one told me.”

Flocking

2005-06-15T17:11:00.000-04:00

The next time someone states that fans are no longer that interested watching PGA TOUR players ply their trade because the game has become boring, ask them to check the attendance figures from golf tournaments. While the U.S. Open will never be confused as a regular old golf tournament, Jim Schlosser of the News-Record reports that 45,000 people showed up for Monday's practice (can't you just hear Allen Iverson's voice, "Practice? I mean come on, it's practice!") round at the U.S. Open.

After much searching, including a thorough going-over of usopen.com, I was unable to find any attendance figures or estimates for Tuesday's practice round, but those I spoke to last night who where there said the course was packed again.

If this pace keeps up, Pinehurst will have hosted between 350,000 and 400,000 spectators by Sunday. And if the Open happens to go into a playoff Monday, it'll clear 400,000 easily.

Observant

2005-06-15T11:55:00.000-04:00

In the run-up for one of the best sporting weeks of the year, the hometown paper here (Charlotte Observer) is in full U.S. Open coverage mode, with a surprising number of "business of golf" related stories. Observing the Observer this week, they ran a few stories that spoke to the health of the golf industry, besides the usual solid competition coverage they provide.

In Tuesday's Business section, a story titled "An Open invitation to N.C.", (registration required) the reporter details how the North Carolina Tourism marketing arm will spend roughly $3 million in golf advertising this year, including flying 27 writers from the United States, Europe and Canada to Pinehurst. The hope is that these writers will continue to write positive stories, which, according to the story, will induce more golfers to travel to North Carolina to play.

The article lays out the current state of golf in the state, and in the country: "All states are chasing a static number of golfers. The number playing eight rounds or more a a year has remained basically flat the since 2001, according to the foundation, a research firm that looks at the golf industry." The story goes on to quote Mickey McCamish, president of Golf Holiday, a company that owns golf courses and accomodations in Myrtle Beach: "It's gotten tough with Econ 101: The number of golf courses has gone up, but the number of golfers hasn't."

The story says the median green fees to play 18 holes of golf in North Carolina is $35. The paper states that golf in North Carolina is a $1 billion industry - that's out of $13 billion the state reaps from tourism (beaches, museums, mountains, skiing, hunting, fishing, etc.) each year.

There is a perception that the game of golf is in ruins, and if that's the case, the rightful question is: Then why is the pace of golf course development outstripping the pace of golf participation?

MOS

2005-06-13T11:24:00.000-04:00

A term used in the "news" business for "Man on the street" - MOS reporting means asking people on the street what they think of a certain issue or event. Seemingly not as common a tactic as it once was, it still gets wide practice during elections, especially presidential elections.

While we're in the middle of a "bring back facts, evidence and balance and take out reporter's opinions" journalism campaign, we thought it would be a useful tool to sample the opinion of the average golfer on any and all issues in the sport today. We'll do this with other sports too - and hopefully it will spur further discussion and thought.

At a local course yesterday afternoon, my playing partner and I had a single added. Tony from New Jersey has lived in Charlotte for the last 10 years, and started playing golf when he arrived.
He plays often, and is probably in the 15-handicap range. When asked about how technology has affected him or his play, he responded, "I've experienced the club advancements, but I haven't seen any improvements in the ball for me....I'm still waiting on that". The follow up question was, "What do you think of Hootie Johnson's proclamation of advancing ball technology forcing the Masters to go to a ball just for TOUR players?" Tony replied, "Didn't he install high-tech drainage systems for the course? Why is he the only one that gets to take advantage of new technology, no matter what it is in?"

Tony said he watches the four majors, and some of the other big tournaments, but mostly prefers to be outside playing, than watching television. The final, unscientific question posed to Tony was, "has advancing technology dampened your enthusiasm for the game, playing or watching?" "No." was the quick and short response.

While at the Open this week, we'll be asking fans the same questions.

Anatomy of the Round Table

2005-06-10T12:33:00.000-04:00

Credit to Sports Illustrated for taking the initiative to get some of the "players" in the golf industry to sit down for a good old fashioned "round table" discussion in the Golf Plus Preview special edition for the U.S. Open. Their choice of panelists was interesting, but yet true to form, on how these "round table" features are assembled.

From my days at ESPN, there was a certain formula used whenever a "round table" was put together. The recipe as such (depending on the size of hoped-for round table, and the weighty matters to be discussed):

One player, one representative from the corresponding industry (for example, Nike in the case of cheap labor being used to make retail sporting goods), one representative from a governing body, and one person who doesn't really have the credentials of the others, but is put on the panel because they won't hesitate to mix it up with the other panelists, using the platform to make wild statements with no facts or evidence in support, so the dialogue is more lively, more fun to read or watch. This person is called the "agitator". The panel has a "moderator" as well.

So here is SI's "round table":

The Player - Brad Faxon, PGA TOUR player, and member of the PGA TOUR Policy Board.
The Industry rep - Larry Dorman, Sr. V.P. at Callaway Golf.
The Governing body rep - David Fay, Executive Director of the U.S.G.A. (good get by SI, and kudos to Mr. Fay for being willing to take the expected abuse about last year's Open debacle at Shinnecock Hills.)
The Agitator - Geoff Shackelford, who SI identifies as an "author and fledgling course architect".
The Moderator - Jeff Silverman, SI writer.

Unfortunately, while the piece is sub-headed "SI's panel of experts discusses the bone-dry '04 Open and a host of other topics", the sub-head under the headline on the cover reads, "Why is everyone picking on the ball", which is pretty much the focus of the "round table". Little time is devoted on how to grow the game, what kind of impact initiatives like the First Tee and Play Golf America are having, what to do about the glut of golf courses in this country, but again, SI is to be applauded for at least tackling some issues.

The other unfortunate aspect of this formulaic round table is that the Agitator, while fulfilling his role, tosses out the expected unsubstantiated generalisms to stir debate, and promptly gets embarrassed. Example from SI.com:

"SHACKELFORD: The equipment doesn't help the average guy as much as some people think. The point Rugge needs to make is that golf, like tennis, is less interesting to watch than it used to be.
FAY: I violently disagree.
FAXON: That makes three of us.
FAY: A person's view of the health of today's game is directly related to the number on his birth certificate. There's a reason why [five-time British Open champion] Peter Thomson walks around with a golf ball in his hand saying, This is the solution to the game's problems. He's not carrying a ball from 1920, 1930 or 1940. He has a ball from 1960, which happens to be the time when he was at his best."

Of course, no evidence or research is used to support Mr. Shackelford's assertion that golf is less interesting to watch, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a chance to stir the pot.

Mirror, mirror

2005-06-09T21:28:00.000-04:00

I was fortunate to work with Joe Louis Barrow Jr. a few times during my tenure at the PGA TOUR. His name is a good one to have come up in a word association game; the quick and easy response is "committed". An eloquent speaker and writer, his recent missive in GolfBusiness.com typifies his "commitment" to growing the game of golf, focusing on this country's youth.

While others sit back and talk the talk, Mr. Barrow walks the walk. Purposefully, passionately and poignantly. Under the headline, "The Future on Our Watch - Does the golf industry have the courage to grow the game one person at a time?"

Mr. Barrow asks, "Do we in the industry have the will to look in the mirror, to know each of us can make a difference if we have the determination and perseverance to do so? Are we willing to seek and embrace all demographics, including women, African and Hispanic Americans, and juniors as they will be the core universe of prospects from now to 2020? Are we willing to acknowledge that golf is a leisure-time business and design a golf experience consistent with the new customer’s allocation of leisure time? Are we willing to be on the course when our customers need us and have people of the same ethnic background or gender available to greet them? If the answers are no, the person in the mirror reflects our past. If the answers are yes, the person in the mirror is our future.

The interest in golf could not be higher as reflected by the increased number of fans attending and viewing PGA and LPGA Tour events. Interest is not the issue; rather, it is whether we have the requisite focus to expand the game."

So perhaps the game isn't in ruins, but needs courage to grow?

Juxtapose those words with the words of Nationwide Tour Guy Boros. Reluctant reader Greg e-mailed this link from the Buffalo News (Greg is an upstate New York transplant - but don't hold that against him), and Mr. Boros is profiled (somewhat) under the headline, "Boros sets record straight on technology". Here's what Mr. Boros says: "I'm the only one technology's hurt," Boros said. "A lot of guys are gaining 30 yards and I've picked up 5 from 10 years ago, eight years ago. It's definitely not helped me as much as other guys."

The reporters writes that Mr. Boros accuracy has been negated due to the advances in golf club and ball technology. Mr. Boros continues, "The competition is a lot deeper......before you'd have maybe 10 or 15 kids coming up that are good. Now you've got maybe 30, 35 kids. The thing I find is they all hit it long, and that's not a problem, but now they all hit it straight. Every once in a while a young kid would hit it 310, but he's hitting it off line once or twice a day. Now it's just not happening."

These comments exemplify how a multitude of elements, combined, allow the best players in the world to achieve great distance off the tee. These "kids", as Mr. Boros calls them, are stronger, fitter and have developed swings to take complete advantage in course set-up conditions, and club and ball technology. The talent pool is deep and getting deeper. When Tiger Woods came up, his strength, conditioning and fitness, as several PGA TOUR players have stated for the record, forced them to push away from the dinner table before that third helping, and hit the gym.

Perhaps, after a look in the mirror, Mr. Boros realizes it may be a conditioning issue. If not, the only other explanation is that the balls and clubs are choosing who they want to benefit.

Survey says.....

2005-06-08T17:13:00.000-04:00

As written earlier in this space (Due Diligence? - April 15th), you'll have a hard time finding someone in the golf industry as knowledgeable and helpful as Jeff Bollig and the people at the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America.

The GCSAA has released their latest survey , with, of course, many very interesting findings.

52% of respondents said they have added some or a significant amount of wildlife habitat to their courses. 42% said they've neither added nor subtracted wildlife, leaving 7% having subracted some to a significant amount of land from habitat (1% didn't know). For the cry echoing around the country that the game is in ruins because the ball flies too far, thus requiring more land to elongate the course, these numbers would seem to quiet those echoes.

The one stat that will be seized upon by those pushing the "game in ruinations" agenda, the answer to this question: "Has or will your course in the near future, undertake a renovation or remodel solely to compensate for changes in golf ball/club technology?" 21% percent said yes, while 75% said no, and 4% didn't know. That 21% seems like a large number, and it is, and that is what will be quoted when an "expert" claims golf is in ruins.

But leave it to Mr. Bollig and his colleagues to ask the right follow up question, which they posted on the introductory page of the survey: "In defense of par? Concerns have been raised that the latest and greatest technological advances to golf equipment are challenging the integrity of the game. As golf ball/club technology continues to evolve, some courses have been renovated or remodeled to compensate for the changes in distance and accuracy. But is this just an isolated trend, or are more and more facilities following suit? Twenty-one percent of superintendents said that they have recently undertaken a course renovation or remodeling solely to compensate for changes in golf ball/club technology or intend to. Feedback from golf course industry professionals indicates the renovations were occurring at old courses that had never undergone such work or had not done so in a considerable time."

Perhaps the stat that jumped out the most was the response to the question: "Are there too many golf courses in your region (city, metropolitan area, county)?" To which 53% said yes. Now keep in mind that this group of respondents, golf course superintendents, obviously have more jobs with more courses in existence. But they feel there are too many courses, and that significant percentage of those courses will be closing in the next five years.

A good start

2005-06-06T17:27:00.000-04:00

From a weekend edition of the Denver Post: "There is a segment of American society that for commercial or ideological reasons wants to stop individual checks on their power," said David Cay Johnston, a business reporter for The New York Times.

Mr. Johnston was attending the Investigative Reporters and Editors 2005 conference being held in Denver, Colorado (Dan Rather was Saturday's keynote speaker - that had to be good). The IRE is a group that promotes watchdog journalism.

Unfortunately, while it would be hard to argue with Mr. Johnston's assessment, the media and journalists have so badly shot themselves in the collective foot with false accusations, inaccurate reporting and poor investigative practices (anonymous sources, or opinions that have no basis in fact being presented as fact, etc.), that segment of American society is going to have the rest of American society on their side in condemning the industry.

This may be the understatement of the year, from the Denver Post writer: "The convention comes amid efforts at reform within the news business, which many journalists, analysts and academics across the country agree is going through a mounting credibility crisis."

As much as we try to stay true to our Unplayable Lies mission, it's hard not to opine that the mounting is now a mountain, and more than just the media's credibility is at stake. Our relevance too.

Horse's mouth

2005-06-06T10:58:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, it's just better to hear it from the source:

1. From Sports Illustrated's GolfPlus (not always well-balanced journalism, but an excellent section for golf fans) Q and A with Justin Leonard after he won the FedEx Classic in the June 6th edition (on newsstands now):

Q - "Has the extra muscle you've added this year helped you?"

JL - "It has helped me hit it further, and who wouldn't like that?"

From the agenda put forth by some in the golf industry, we should all be shocked to hear (from a TOUR player, no less) that strength and fitness factor greatly into increasing swing speeds and ball distance.

2. Back to the not-so-well balanced journalism, this Associated Press story on SI.com blares this headline and subhead: "Concerns grow about Pinehurst - USGA official says course will be ready for Open"

The concern(s) were backed up by this quote from Tiger Woods: "From what I've heard so far, they've had some bad growing conditions."

But the U.S. Golf Association senior director of competitions, Mike Davis, said this last week, after a tour of the course:
"It looks marvelous," Davis said. "The greens look perfect. The fairways are in wonderful condition...It's a little spotty, but I don't see any reason why the rough won't be ready for the Open," he said. "Once we get some heat, the rough is going to be just fine."

According to A.P., golf course superintendent Paul Jett was asked later about the rough, and said, "It's spotty -- that's a good word for it....In some places, it's two inches. In some places, it's three inches. We're hoping in two weeks it won't be an issue."

So where is the concern growing, exactly? Mr. Woods "heard" about the course, but yet with two people extremely familiar with set-up for the Open (granted, they're probably going to give the optimistic viewpoint given their respective positions), the headline implies that the Open may not have a playable course by next week, even though the greens and fairways are in what is being described as "marvelous". No other "concerns" were cited in the piece, either by TOUR pros or people close to the course.

I'm all for catchy headlines and getting people to click on or tune in, but.......

(Editor's note: This part of North Carolina has experienced three straight days of high humidity and temperatures in the mid to high 80's. The forecast for the next ten days is showing daily temps staying above, and well above on some days, 80. That's it for the weather, let's get back to sports......)

3. From Bart Bryant after etching his name in the history books with the win Sunday at Memorial, clearing up some misinformation on his medical history (courtesy asap.com):

Q. There seems to be some dispute as to how many surgeries you've had. Can you clear that up?
BART BRYANT: I had three, a left rotator cuff surgery in '92, and I had a left elbow surgery in 2000, and right elbow surgery in 2002.
Q. TV said back surgery in 2003. Not true?
BART BRYANT: I don't remember that one (laughter). That doesn't mean it didn't happen (laughter).

At least Mr. Bryant can laugh about it.

4. Again from asap.com, the first question to Annika Sorenstam after winning the ShopRite LPGA Classic:

Q. "This is your 61st win overall, fifth win in seven tournaments this year. I think you're 9th in last your 13 tournaments. You've also played your last eleven rounds in the 60s. I'm not sure you're aware of that or not. Put it all into perspective for us."
ANNIKA SORENSTAM: "Wow, yes. I don't know if you can really put it into perspective. I would say I'm overwhelmed. When you look at all the stats, it's just something obviously it's something I'm very proud of, but not something I walk around thinking about. It was a fun day today going out and playing with Juli in the last group.
Good crowds, good course, good tournaments. On the back nine you know there are some birdies to get and you know you have to play good golf to win. It's a great setting, a great finish. And to be able to finish to tie the birdie with Juli on 17 and then to roll in a fabulous putt on 18, the eagle, it doesn't get much better than that.
This is when I look at my career and say, Hey, this is why I do this. This is why I wake up in the mornings and love to practice and can come out here. Having said all that, obviously I'm thrilled to be sitting here and couldn't have asked for a better day."

Eleven consecutive rounds in the 60's - must be the ball.

Studious-athlete

2005-06-03T16:20:00.000-04:00

A far distance (isn't it always?) from student-athlete, the studious athlete actually thinks and has actually read about a topic before answering specific questions, which often results in a thoughtful, educated response.

To wit, Davis Love III pre-tournament press conference at the Memorial. For the entire interview, and interviews from all the players, pre and post round, go to asap sports. Mr. Love's responses to the concern that today's golf ball is ruining the game, are especially interesting for two reasons: First, there probably hasn't been a more vocal opponent of today's golf ball than Mr. Nicklaus (whose main business today is focused on golf course design) who is the host of the Memorial, and second, Mr. Love is a golf course designer himself (of some acclaim), so he is able to speak not just from a "studious-athlete" perspective, but also as a TOUR player (and member of the PGA TOUR policy board) and golf course architect.

Reporter: "Mr. Nicklaus has been somewhat vocal about his concerns about the golf ball and the hot golf ball. As you look back on your career with Titleist from the time you were a kid playing the old balata 100 compression through the last few years with Pro V1 and Pro V1X, could you compare the generations of balls and do you think it's a problem and something maybe the USGA will be addressing in the future?"

Davis Love III: "Well, the great thing is the USGA did address it a few years ago. They set an overall distance standard. They changed the way they test. They have gotten into the modern era of testing and understanding what's going on with the golf ball. They have a better relationship with the Tour, with the manufacturers, and overall distance standards, if you come out with a new driver that hits the current ball 20 yards farther, we're not going to allow it. If you come out with a new ball that goes over the distance standard, we're not going to allow it, other than stuff we can't understand like ball speed and launch. They've done a good job."

"Now, should they have done it before the Pro V1 or the professional ball? Probably, but they don't have the resources that the manufacturers have. But can you go backwards? I think if you went out and did an exit survey here and said how many people play golf like these guys you just watched today, nobody is going to say they play golf like us. If you ask them has the game gotten easier over the last ten years with equipment, they'll tell you it's become a little more fun, but no, it hasn't gotten any easier."

"So unless you're going to have the pros play one game and the amateurs play another game, which I don't think would ever work, it's like if the NBA played 12 foot baskets and college played 11 and high school played 10, we couldn't compare, and you couldn't move to the next level very easily."

"I think it's hard to say that we've ruined the game when you go to Memphis and 12 or 13 under wins and you go to Colonial and one guy shoots a great score, everybody else shoots a relatively high score, and Hilton Head 7 under par wins by 2. I don't think the game is ruined, and the average guy really understands that no matter what you do with the ball, if you roll it back 20 percent, Tiger Woods is still going to be pretty good and he's still going to hit it a long way and he's still going to hit it longer than anybody else. I don't think you're really going to affect anything other than maybe make Tiger hitting a 6 iron in rather than a 7, and I don't think that really changes anything. We'd have to back up a heck of a lot of golf courses, a lot of the ones I've been building. We play 7,500 yard golf courses and 490 yard par 4, so if you roll the ball back 20 percent you're going to move the tees up. There's a lot more to it than just saying the golf ball goes too far."

Reporter: "Along those lines, do you think one thing that links the different eras of golf no matter how much the golf ball has improved and swing coaches, when you get right down to it the game can be maddening, challenging, and no matter what you do the essence of golf is still befuddling?"

Davis Love III: "That's the thing, if you go back and say they played with hickory shafts and you guys play with steel shafts, you can't compare Bobby Jones to Byron Nelson, that's not fair. We've done that for 100 years. We've compared one generation to the next. We can't say that the athletes in the NBA today aren't 100 percent better than the athletes from 50 years ago just because of training and physiotherapy and understanding your body and how to get better, plus there's just more and more people playing the game."

"So yeah, it's hard to say, who's better, Shaq or Wilt Chamberlain because they're from different eras and different backgrounds, but we can compare all the players in the last 15 years because we've all been playing with the same stuff. I think we all get the same equipment. It's not like Tiger has something different than Ernie. You know, we're all getting the same stuff and we're all playing the same stuff that you can go right down go in the pro shop here and buy. I think that's the beauty of the game is the average guy can go out and get a driver, a putter, a wedge, a ball and go see if he can do what Tiger can do, and he can figure out pretty quick that he can't do it."

"I've said this all along, give me Jeff Gordon's race car, I can't make it go as fast as Jeff Gordon. He can get more out of it because he's one of the best in the world. We're just taking great equipment that helps people play better and we're getting the most out of it."

Notice Mr. Love used the phrase "ruined the game" - the phrase has almost become so ubiquitous that if you use the phrase in a sports crowd, they'll know you're referring to golf. We continue to live in a world where assertions without evidence, proclamations without data and "expert" testimony colors our ability to have (or get) an informed, well balanced, perspective on any subject.

Freaky for sure

2005-06-01T18:41:00.000-04:00

Great combinations in history: Peanut butter and jelly, Laurel and Hardy, cold beer and a ballpark hotdog, Dick Butkus and any running back, Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel.

Adding one more: A good book and a transatlantic flight.

I enjoyed the last two combinations over the holiday weekend, and while both still have my mind spinning, it's the latter that needs more illumination.

If you haven't heard about the new book "Freakonomics - A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything" by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, you have now.

Levitt, the distinguished economist at the University of Chicago, and Dubner, a talented writer at the New York Times, form another great combination to look at the cold hard facts behind the conventional wisdom and the incentives of so-called "experts" on a variety of issues, from what is really behind the declining violent crime rate in this country, to the accepted and highly secret "fixing" that goes on in Sumo wrestling, a sport cherished by the Japanese for its sportsmanship and ethics.

The authors lay out a few fundamental ideas that provided the foundation of the book:
1. "Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life".
2. "The conventional wisdom is often wrong".
3. "Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle causes".
4. " 'Experts' - from criminologists to real-estate agents - use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda."
5. "Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so."

Throughout the book, the two authors diplomatically take to task all the "experts" that continually float through our media world. Those who take a part or a nugget of data and flog it mercilessly to support their assertions, without ever really digging in and analyzing the facts, the data or information - because doing so might disprove or render their argument false, damaging the chances for their agenda being successfully executed.

The following are some quotes from throughout the book, which ring so true when you hear the "experts" such as aging golf superstars and course architects complain that golf is in ruins:

"It is well and good to opine or theorize about a subject, as humankind is wont to do, but when moral posturing is replaced by an honest assessment of the data, the result is often a new, surprising insight."

"If you were to assume that many experts use their information to your detriment, you'd be right. Experts depend on the fact that you don't have the information that they do. Or that you are so befuddled by the complexity of their operation that you wouldn't know what to do with the information if you had it. Or that you are so in awe of their expertiese that you wouldn't dare challenge them."

"Armed with information, experts can exert a gigantic, if unspoken leverage: fear."

Next time you read or hear an "expert" in the sport of golf assert that the game is in ruins, they're trying to scare you. Just ask for the cold hard data to back up their assertion - as Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Wind

2005-06-01T02:56:00.000-04:00

A sad day for golf fans: Herbert Warren Wind has passed away.

Ethics

2005-05-20T11:34:00.000-04:00

Always behind on my golf reading, I recently stumbled across a website that has published some survey results from the latest "Golf Datatech Survey". If you didn't know, Golf Datatech is a market research company specializing in "......retail sales, inventory, pricing and distribution, along with consumer attitude and usage studies and strategic sales and marketing consulting."

Utilized by many in the golf industry, Golf Datatech's research has always been highly confidential, and accordingly, does not come free. When you go to their web site, they have little blurbs about their studies, present and past, along with the price of each if you decide to purchase/subscribe. At the bottom of each report, reads: "Confidentiality Of Report - This report, in part and its entirety, is the copyrighted property of Golf Datatech, LLC. Under no circumstances may information taken from this statistical report be used for any promotional purpose, be released orally or in writing to any media, research company or stock analyst company without the prior approval of Golf Datatech, LLC."

Imagine the surprise when I found some of this highly proprietary information from their latest survey, online, on a free site, in the public domain (as I wrote in an earlier piece, following the lead of my previous employer, whose policy it is to refrain from showing streakers and other goofballs that interrupt sporting events, I will refrain from linking to the site in question - extremely poor ethics does not merit further recognition). I thought maybe something had changed with Golf Datatech's policy, so I called Tom Stine, who was one of the founders of GolfWeek, and its publisher for 15 years. Mr. Stine is one of the partners in Golf Datatech.

Mr. Stine had already been informed that some of Datatech's information had been published, and had this to say when asked for a reaction: "First and foremost, this information is proprietary and its copyrighted" he said. "Not only was it wrong for someone to give it to someone else, but it is wrong to publish proprietary and copyrighted material. To make matters worse, we did not reveive any calls for verification of the information, and what was published was not put in the proper context. I come from the old school of journalism, where a writer collects his own facts, and verifies his own sources, and then writes what he discovers, not what he has simply been told is truth. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of ethics."

He can have it back....

2005-05-19T18:21:00.001-04:00

Ok, so there is still some residual guilt from hocking the June issue of Golf Australia from my dentist. That should dissipate quickly upon returning it, especially after I found this "Teeing Off" section titled: "Clipping the wings of long flying balls". As we've seen, pages in print, online and television "news" shows can at anytime become a forum for anyone's opinion, evidence (or lack thereof) or facts be damned.

Reading through this piece from the Editor, was surprised to see this: "While the major manufacturers were compliant with regulations relating to spring effect drivers, they may not go as quietly if the USGA and R & A decide to peg back golf ball distances. There are already rumblings from Titleist and Srixon executives about fair trade. The lawyers are already rubbing their hands together, Montgomerie Burns-style, in anticipation of a courtroom joust....The “Ball War” is just around the corner."

If you've read this blog a few times, you know this topic is one of the prime examples used to show how media platforms are being used (some would argue "kidnapped", but we try to avoid adding to the hysteria here) by those with a heavy agenda to deliver their argument, without supporting evidence or facts.

Suffice to say that we've read as much as possible about this ruination of the game of golf, and have not seen one "rumbling" or anything close about "fair trade" issues from Srixon or Titleist executives (management, lawyers, etc.) about the USGA's potential option of rolling back golf ball distance.

But maybe we missed it, right?

After three days of Googling (it is a verb now, isn't it?), we have not found one published report or quote from Titleist or Srixon about unleashing the legal beagles on the USGA in the event of any rollback.

So we asked Joe Gomes, longtime Titleist spokesperson, if there have been internal or external (quotes or discussions with the media, etc.) comments made to support Golf Australia's claim. Mr. Gomes responded with a quote from Wally Uihlein, Chairman and CEO of Acushnet (parent company of Titleist): "We take exception to the suggestion that we have lawyers “already rubbing their hands together, Montgomerie Burns-style, in anticipation of a courtroom joust”.

"In 1983 when the USGA/R&A de-listed our number one selling golf ball the Titleist 384 Tour, we did not litigate. We in fact recalled the product, made the necessary tooling changes (at a cost well in excess of $1 million dollars [US]) and went about our business. This in spite of the fact that the rule under which we were de-listed was so poor a rule as to be stricken from the books two years later.

"Being responsible for ALL of our public positions viz equipment regulation, I have not anywhere suggested that litigation is high on our list of next steps. Quite the opposite is the case. What we have said in public is “The USGA and the R&A have ruled their worlds effectively for 100 years plus and should be supported in their endeavor to respond to the games current challenges while effectively anticipating the future.”

Where is the legal saber rattling in that quote?"

According to Mr. Gomes, Titleist feels that Golf Australia's piece was such an egregious misrepresentation of their position, that Mr. Uihlein wrote the Editor directly.

We posed the same question to Hollie Vokal at Srixon Sports, U.S.A., and she was good enough to provide this response from Richard Stamper, President and COO of Srixon Sports, U.S.A.: "As a general statement, Srixon has and will continue to philosophically oppose equipment restrictions that the USGA has imposed and any that they may contemplate in future. With that being said, our R&D folks are still evaluating the latest ball project request from the USGA and have not yet decided whether or not Srixon will participate. It would therefore be premature to suggest any course of action in response to a potential decision that if made, is years away at the earliest. In short, SrixonSports USA has made no public statements suggesting legal action in response to the USGA's latest request." (see "SrixonSports statement" for entire response.)

While it is doubtful there will be any loss of life because of this unsubstantiated claim by Golf Australia, it is, like the situation Newsweek has found itself in with the erroneous report on the U.S. military's alleged desecretion of the Koran, another example of irresponsible "journalism". The fact that the Golf Australia's assertion came in the form of a columnist-style "teeing off" forum, doesn't lessen its impact nor the repercussions.

If USGA senior technical director Dick Rugge saw the piece in Golf Australia, wouldn't he automatically assume that Srixon and Titleist are spoiling for a fight, before there has been any decisions made, if there are any decisions made? Putting both Srixon and Titleist at odds with one of golf's governing bodies?

Perhaps the editor has "anonymous sources" - but if so, it is still incumbent for the writer to provide background on the source(s), to better educate the reader, allowing them to determine whether or not that person's affiliation may reveal an agenda.

But we don't even get that. Decide for yourself what we did get.

Srixon Sports U.S.A. statement

2005-05-19T06:14:00.000-04:00

As a general statement, Srixon has and will continue to philosophically oppose equipment restrictions that the USGA has imposed and any that they may contemplate in future. With that being said, our R&D folks are still evaluating the latest ball project request from the USGA and have not yet decided whether or not Srixon will participate. It would therefore be premature to suggest any course of action in response to a potential decision that if made, is years away at the earliest. In short, Srixon Sports U.S.A. has made no public statements suggesting legal action in response to the USGA's latest request.

Looking ahead, Srixon, like our competitive peers, will vigorously defend our right to design, manufacture and sell golf balls and equipment that consumers around the world want to buy. We hope that this can be done within the Rules of Golf, as administered by the USGA and R&A, and I see nothing at this time that would suggest that this hope cannot be fulfilled.

Regards

Richard Stamper
President & Chief Operating
OfficerSrixon Sports, USA.

Maybe they're taking turns.....

2005-05-17T17:24:00.000-04:00

Jack Nicklaus, then Arnold Palmer now Gary Player.

SportsIllustrated.com picked up a SportsTicker story from Portugal, in which PGA TOUR legend Gary Player is said to be convinced that "....modern-day priority of power over accuracy is (here it comes....it's too bad you can't have music play underneath as you read this....I would select the tension-building stylings from "Jaws" just before the following) ruining golf."

The story cites Mr. Player's first-hand evidence of playing on the Champions Tour: "I play on the Champions Tour now, and there are guys on it who are shooting scores that they could never shoot when they were young men," he said. "It just doesn't make sense, and it's ruining golf."

He offers no other evidence, but goes on to say: "I just hate to see what's happening today with golf clubs that I consider to be illegal," Player said. "I'd stop the grooves being so deep (on the ball), and I'd stop the trampoline effect in the wood." I think he may have meant grooves on the clubs, since there aren't grooves on the golf ball, but I could be wrong.

Mr. Player also cited the high cost of golf course development, money that could be better spent in other areas: "You go to such an expense to make golf courses eight and nine thousand yards long -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- and that money could go into development of golf for young people," he said.

Read through the article - there is really no evidence offered that the game is in ruins (one would think that better conditioned 50 year-olds, who are playing on pristine courses with perfectly fitted clubs and balls, who are chasing millions of dollars, are naturally going to be playing better than 50 year-olds did 25 years ago).

As far as the money spent on lengthening golf courses and building new ones that are much longer, when you read about the money being tossed around to develop, design and build (see previous "How bad can it be?" posts) golf courses, it's hard to believe that this is a hardship.

Mr. Player's apocalyptic siren reminds me of the Bill Fields' piece in the latest GolfWorld. Mr. Fields writes about the speech R.H. Robertson, the president of the USGA at the time, made at the annual meeting.

In 1902.

Titled: "Equipment goes back to the future", Mr. Robertson is quoted: "Our longest holes are little more than a drive and a putt.....my feeling is that if the game continues to improve in the matter of its length and we get just a little more resiliency in the ball and a little better clubs than we have now, the game in the future will be relegated to the only place where it can be played, and that is on the great prairies of our Western Country. There will be no other place which can be selected which is worthy of playing on, and incidently that would eliminate a very troublesome feature of our game - where to hold the tournaments".

Golf Illustrated, the prominent golf publication of the time, also weighed in: "If the carrying power of golf balls is to be still further increased, all our courses will be irretrievably ruined"

Mr. Fields also cites testimony from one of the top players of the day, also.

Does this not sound familiar?

If you haven't read the piece, do so, in its entirety. The best line in the piece, however, belongs to Mr. Fields, who writes: "Everybody's got an agenda in this conversation, don't they?"

Indeed they do.

How bad can it be? (down under edition)

2005-05-16T12:52:00.000-04:00

I've always looked askance at those who, while waiting in the doctor or dentist office, tear out articles or just take the whole magazine when they happen to stumble across something they want to read more of or show to a friend.

That was me earlier today, when my Australian-raised dentist had a copy of the June 2005 Golf Australia magazine on one of the waiting room tables.

I promised my dentist I'd bring it back, but I won't hurry. I needed it after reading a couple of their updates in the "Around the Traps" section, figuring the same articles won't be posted online.

Unfortunately for you, I was right, and am not able to link to the stories so you can read them (unless you have a sub to Golf Australia magazine).

With the continual drumbeat that today's golf ball is single-dimpledly (new word) ruining the game of golf, I am surprised when I read announcements such as this (courtesy, of course, of Golf Australia magazine): "....Peter Thomson recently turned the first sod to mark the start of construction on the second course at Melbourne's Sandhurst Club. Thomson and Sandhurst Club chairman, former Olympian Ken Roche, walked onto the site ahead of the graders and broke the earth on the Championship course, which will honour Australia's greatest tournament golfers. Designed by Thomson and buisness partner Ross Perrett, the course is expected to play later next year. .......The Thomson and Perrett design firm also recently won tenders for multi-million dollar developments in Asia and the south Pacific, as well as opening a new office in London. the London office will be headed up by Aussie designer Tom Lobb. 'We are moving into a new phase that involves total planning of housing, golf developments and resorts" Thomson was quoted. He continued....."It's not easy to get the maximum return out of a given piece of land that includes say a golf course and 800 house lots. That's an art in itself and I think we'll be seen to be the leaders in that field'".

Hmmmmmmm........

The next nugget out of the "Around the Traps" section is headlined: "Shark's $180m green light". Jumping to the key part of the text: "Work is expected to start shortly on the $180 million, 136-hectare estate at Cranbourne, in Melbourne's southeast. Medallist Developments - the joint venture company established by Great White Shark Enterprises and the Macquarie Banke - will transform the site adjoining the Cranbourne Royal Botanic Gardens into a 18-hole championship layout with 500 adjoining residential sites."

One hectare equals roughly 2.5 acres. So 340 acres, subracting out 160 to 180 acres for the golf course, and that leaves 160 to 180 acres for housing lots = a truckload of money for the developers. I tried to find the average amount of rounds played by golfers in Australia, and I could not find it. But if they are feeling the effects of too many courses, this is even more of a head scratcher.

When I hear the drumbeat of ruination, and then I read the above, not only are the accusations of greed heaped on equipment manufacturers hard to reconcile, but the supposed ruination of the game forces me to ask (again): How bad can it be?

No thanks, even though they deliver to your door

2005-05-13T12:38:00.000-04:00

GolfWeek's Dave Seanor got an unexpected package recently, one that prompted an anecdotal test with some of his colleagues. Seems someone sent him a box of balls, that may have recently come off of the assembly line but that had 1980's technology inside.

Mr. Seanor and his mates were, um, not too excited about the proposition pushed by the fringe who are claiming the sport is in ruins, and feel the golf ball is to blame (can blame be assigned if there is really no problem? Another question for another time, I guess).

The net-net of Mr. Seanor's experiment was, while he and his friends had fun laughing and joking around on the course, playing golf balls that didn't perform to today's standards (and, oh by the way, those are standards that conform to USGA regulations) was "disconcerting".

The piece is in this week's GolfWeek.

Don't tell me grounds crews actually do this....

2005-05-12T20:14:00.000-04:00

While watching the St. Louis Cardinals host the other team from Los Angeles, the Dodgers, on ESPN, I heard something at first I didn't believe.

Joe Morgan, Hall of Fame second baseman for the Astros, Reds, Giants, Phillies and A's, and now ESPN baseball analyst, was trying to explain how odd it is that Card's pitcher Jeff Suppan has a far superior record and E.R.A. away from Busch Stadium than he does when pitching at home.

The stats for Mr. Suppan since he became a Cardinal in 2004:
w-l e.r.a.
Home 6-8 4.75
Away 10-1 3.55

2005
Home 1-2 5.14
Away 1-1 1.17

Mr. Morgan found it quite surprising, and his reasoning was thus: (Note, I was not recording the game, nor did I have my reporter's notebook handy, so I'm paraphrasing, but will stand by my interpretation completely.)
When he played, Mr. Morgan said the home team players always had an advantage, because as a batter, he and his teammates would tell the grounds crew, who they were friendly with and who were employed by the same organization, exactly what kind of dirt/clay mixture to have in the batter's box, how moist to keep it, how hard to pack it, etc. Now keep in mind where the home plate sits and the lines that are drawn around the base to complete the batter's box are standardized to exact specifications and monitored by MLB.
Mr. Morgan said the pitchers on his team would do the same thing, and have the grounds crew custom-build the mound to accomodate where the starting pitcher's kick leg would land, making sure that the landing was comfortable and in the right spot. Again, the pitching mound and the rubber at each Major League Ballpark have specific standards that each team must adhere to (height, position, etc.). Mr. Morgan's point was with that kind of advantage, he couldn't understand why Mr. Suppan would have a far superior record and E.R.A. on the road than at home.

Looking it up, Mr. Morgan's last year in Major League Baseball was 1984. So grounds crews were that advanced, working with the soil content, the angle of impact from the pitcher etc., over two decades ago.

Keep that in mind next time you hear the argument that golf course set-up has no affect on distance today. The technology, the science and the motivation have been around, not just in golf, but in all sports, for decades.

It's not Pontiac

2005-05-12T10:26:00.000-04:00

I know Pontiac claims to build excitement, but, you can't argue with the excitement the PGA TOUR so far this season:

Nissan Open - Adam Scott defeated Chad Campbell in playoff - first hole (rain-shortened event)

Chrysler Classic of Tucson - Geoff Ogilvy defeated Kevin Na on the second playoff hole.

Ford Championship at Doral - Tiger Woods defeated Phil Mickelson on the final hole.

Honda Classic - Padraig Harrington defeated Vijay Singh on the second playoff hole.

Bay Hill Invitational presented by MasterCard - Kenny Perry defeated Vijay Singh on the final hole

THE PLAYERS Championship - Fred Funk defeated Tom Lehman, Scott Verplank and Luke Donald on the final hole.

BellSouth Classic - Phil Mickelson defeated Rich Beem on the fourth playoff hole.

The Masters - Tiger Woods defeated Chris DiMarco in a playoff.

MCI Heritage - Peter Lonard defeated Darren Clarke on the final hole.

Shell Houston Open - Vijay Singh defeated John Daly on the first playoff hole.

Zurich Classic of New Orleans - Tim Petrovic defeated rookie James Driscoll on the first playoff hole.

Wachovia Championship - Vijay Singh beat Sergio Garcia on the first playoff hole, then beat Jim Furyk on the fourth playoff hole.

Counting was never one of my specialties, but I believe that's 12 events out of the last 13 that was either won on the 72nd hole or went to a playoff. Another solid field this week at the EDS Byron Nelson Championship, with Mr. Garcia back to defend, may provide another exciting finish.

Pretty solid evidence to refute those complaining that the TOUR is boring, and that only the players that lead the TOUR in driving distance are winning, or even competing.

Where's the Juice? (And we don't mean O.J.)

2005-05-11T10:07:00.000-04:00

In a piece rarely seen on today's sports pages (whether they are in print or online), the Associated Press took note of the decline of home runs through the first six weeks of the season, used facts, and talked to a wide variety of people involved in the game. A.P. did use steroids in the opening line, which is a tried and true marketing practice (or is it journalistic practice?), of putting the most salacious element of the story in the headline or in the opening graph.

The opening line in the A.P. story: "In the first year of toughened steroid testing, home runs are down in the major leagues for the first time since 2002."

However, the reporter continues to probe other theories, as well. The absence of Barry Bonds, the cold and rainy weather that plagued the southeast in spring training and the northeast in the first several weeks of the season were some of the possible reasons.

A Major League Baseball official felt that it was too early to draw any conclusions as to why home run production is down (see the info box A.P. put together on the right side of the story).

One manager said, "We went through a period where we saw guys coming up to the big leagues who were throwing 87, 88, 89 mph. Now I see a bunch of guys coming up throwing 92, 94, 95". An active player cited pitching quality, "There are guys that know how to make the ball move a little bit. To me, guys don't throw straight balls anymore, so it's a little tougher to hit the baseball. All it takes is a big swing and the ball's going to be out of the yard. That's all it takes, a good swing on that ball. That has nothing to do with steroids."

On the "steroids as a reason" theory, former major league pitcher Tom House was recently quoted as saying that as far back as the 1960's, Major League pitchers were concerned about losing to opponents using more effective performance-enhancing drugs. "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed".

As I read the A.P. article, one aspect that wasn't tackled was that if tougher steroid testing forced hitters to get off the "juice", thus rendering them less proficient at hitting the long ball, then what effect did being forced off of the "juice" have for pitchers? Wouldn't we see more home runs, because pitchers would be throwing at slower speeds?

Clearly, there are many layers and nuances to all the various elements that affect the frequency and distance of home runs: playing field, climate, weather, equipment and player's size (affected by steroid or supplement usage or not) and bat speed.

For golf fans, sound familiar?

(Editor's note: our mission is to provide the facts. If at any time, we attempt to write a witty, sarcastic one-liner, it won't be followed with a smiley-face or some other screaming teenager language icon)

Rush to judge

2005-05-09T14:32:00.000-04:00

Several days ago we posted a piece that dealt with the ethics of Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan wondering in print of Nomar Garciaparra is suffering from injuries because of previous steroid use.

Peter Gammons has an excellent piece on ESPN.com about "Living in the unknown" as it relates to performance enhancing drug use in Major League Baseball. He cites stats showing offensive production is down this year, but offers perspective by noting the early season may have been affected by cold weather in the Northeast, and the rather sizable fact that we just don't know how prevalent performance enhancing drug use was/is in Major League Baseball.

He also uses some examples of the rush to judgment mentality that seems to be so pervasive in sports "journalism" today (the argument could be made that the same mentality is true about news, weather, lifestyle and just about all other "journalism" today). Now, when a player looks (or is) "smaller" than in seasons past, the assumption is made that his body size decrease is due to getting off the juice: "We do know that some players are smaller, and there have been conclusions drawn. But in Boston, one sportswriter went on television and used Jeff Bagwell as an example of someone whose size has decreased after drug testing. Of course, the person didn't know that Bagwell hasn't been able to lift a weight for nearly four years because of chronic arthritis in his shoulder, but there were a couple of viewers who accepted it as fact rather than unaccountable non-fiction."

So Mr. Bagwell's reputation gets sullied by someone who couldn't even pick up the phone and ask some basic questions.

Mr. Gammons also looks into potential reaction if MLB is able to rid itself of all performance enhancing drugs, from steroids to amphetimines. Suffice to say, it may be a game to which we are unaccustomed.

Unfortunately, it would seem arguing without the facts and shoddy journalism is something we're all too accustomed to.

Sense and sensibility

2005-05-05T13:37:00.000-04:00

How long have we been asking for evidence that the golf ball is ruining the game? Ask, and you shall receive. Or something like that.

E. Michael Johnson, the "equipment" beat writer for GolfWorld, took the time that others don't investigating the accusation. Turns out our dimpled partner isn't responsible for all the world's ills after all. Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson's piece is in print only at this time, but here are some nuggets, courtesy of my GolfWorld subscription:

* 7 yard drop in driving distance in 2005 (so far) from 2004. (When dry weather and hardened summer fairways, those mowed down to the bone, appear in the coming weeks, expect the 2005 number to increase a bit.)
* 2004's scoring average is .02 less than what it was in 1994.
* 34 courses out of 50 that hosted PGA TOUR events in 1994 are on the 2005 schedule. (Guess that makes the argument that the golf ball is "making today's courses obsolete" well, obsolete.)

Get this week's mag for all the details. It's good stuff if you're looking for facts.

And Peter Kostis, in his debut piece from Golf Magazine on GolfOnline, titled "Stop Blaming the Ball! - What's really influencing today's long drives -- and my simple fix for them." Kostis lays out the factors in three areas - equipment, players, and course conditions - that he feels has "....contributed to the increased distances that players are hitting the ball over the last 20 years."

Another argument using facts. We're still waiting on the facts to support the argument that the golf ball is ruining the game.......

How bad can it be?

2005-05-04T14:08:00.000-04:00

I've extolled the virtues of the internet before; while reading from some of my favorite newspapers from around the country, I happened upon this bit of news from the Sacramento Bee (sorry, registration required): Golf course project lands a legend - Jack Nicklaus will design Running Horse club in west Fresno.

Seems that the people who own Running Horse didn't feel that the original designer, John Harbottle III, had a "big enough" name, even though he's an acclaimed golf course designer, who worked for Pete Dye for six years, and has worked on course design with former PGA TOUR players such as Peter Jacobsen and Johnny Miller (good bio of Mr. Harbottle on TravelGolf.com).

According to TravelGolf, Mr. Harbottle has ".....earned praise for the playability and environmental sensitivity of his creations while implementing strategic elements passed down from architecture's masters."

Environmental sensitivity is not on the priority list of course developers who want to cash in on the real estate surrounding a course. When I read the particulars of Nicklaus Design replacing Mr. Harbottle, it would seem that the game of golf, and the golf industry, may not be in ruins. I mean, how bad can it be?

* Nicklaus Design fee - "more than a million dollars". (Nicklaus Design is scheduled to open 25 courses this year, with Nicklaus directly involved in 14 - more than 1 per month).
* Estimated course cost - between 10 and 12 million dollars.
* Clubhouse size - 30,000 square feet.
* Course size - over 7,000 yards.
* Water holes - 13 (homes on water historically have higher value).
* Number of home sites - 780
* Home lot sizes - between 7,000 and 18,000 square feet.
* Expected home prices - between $400,000 and $600,000 (which is amazing, since the median price for a home in Fresno County is $239,500)

Quick tap of the calculator, 780 x $500,000 (averaging out the expected home prices) equals a jaw-dropping potential of $390 million in home sales (Higher than some country's GNP).

To answer the question, it would seem not too bad,
not too bad at all.

Trailer Technology

2005-05-03T19:01:00.000-04:00

One of the added perks of moving to Charlotte, North Carolina, is being able to read, on a regular basis, the father-son writing tandem of Ron Green Sr. and Ron Green Jr. in the Observer.

(Full disclosure alert: Mr. Green Sr. occasionally wrote for PGATOUR.COM when I was the Executive Producer/General Manager of the site).

They both are accomplished writers, and while I don't always agree with what they write, I always enjoy it, and I am always provoked into further thought.

In Tuesday's edition of the Observer, Ron Green Jr. profiled the equipment trailers that each major manufacturer sends to all PGA TOUR events, that provide support for the TOUR players playing their product.

It drives home the point, while watching and listening to the current golf ball hysteria, that the professional player has access to technology the rest of us only dream about. To wit: "Basically we have everything here that we would have in our production facility (in California)," said Paul Loeggering, a TaylorMade technician onsite this week.
It's pretty much the same next door at the Cleveland trailer or the Callaway trailer or any of the other major manufacturers. If you're a tour player under contract to one of the big-time companies, they come to you.

I'm not writing this with any jealousy or anger - these are the greatest players in the world, and they should have the best equipment to play with. And the benefactors are us, the fans, who get to watch them play.

But when I hear how the entire game of golf is in ruins because of today's golf ball, and then read a feature like this, it makes me wonder (again) where the evidence of the game's demise is. For example, from the Observer: "..... the inside of the trailer is stuffed like Santa's bag full of toys. There are shafts in every weight and flex, color and torque ratio. There are drawers filled with grips and drawers filled with clubheads. Driver heads. Fairway wood heads. Iron heads. Putter heads.
Some of it hasn't made it to the market yet. Tim Petrovic won the Zurich Classic in New Orleans on Sunday with a Rossa putter that has an insert that won't be available to the public before July. "If there's a new shaft, you have the ability to jump on it and say, `This is better,' " Ridings said. "If it's worth a couple of shots a week, that's a world of difference.

The piece goes on: During an average week, Loeggering said technicians will make 40 or more drivers, most just to be tested by players searching for something different. "Only about 30 percent of what we do each week is standard maintenance on clubs, stuff like checking the loft and lie or new grips," Loeggering said. "Because of certain features at different courses, guys may want to change something. "At New Orleans last week, it was fairly flat and dry so they were using higher-lofted clubs. With Quail Hollow being an old-style course with more hills, they'll probably go back to less-lofted drivers that get less spin."

Reading that, is there any doubt as to why this small percentage of golfers hits the ball farther than the rest of us? Any doubt why they hit the ball farther than they did 20 years ago? Sports has become situational, from lefty/righty late-inning matchups in baseball, to nickel and dime packages on passing downs in football to calling timeouts to get a taller defender in at the end of the half in basketball. Games pivot on the situation now, and every situation is broken down to each detail, with an emphasis on the improvement of each detail, to get the edge in each situation.

The trailers are gone by Thursday of tournament play, but their impact remains through Sunday.

Sources

2005-05-03T12:36:00.000-04:00

Recently, new Cleveland Cavaliers' owner Dan Gilbert, who has fired head coach Paul Silas and General Manager Jim Paxson since taking over the team, was asked about some of the rumors that have floated around the organization since he took over (this excerpt is from the Sports Business Daily): Gilbert was asked, "Is it true that you passed notes to [former coach Paul] Silas during a game asking him to play certain players? Why have rumors persisted about you as a meddlesome owner?" Gilbert: "That is completely false. ...the 'ESPN Entertainer' who said it is the same guy who made up the story about 'Jim Paxson being fired within 48 hours' when it was completely untrue and never even discussed here at all. He is also the same guy who made up stories about 'LeBron's mother not liking the new ownership team.' This guy, lets call him 'John A. Doe' is an entertainer, not a journalist" (Cleveland PLAIN DEALER, 4/26). The story of Gilbert passing notes to Silas was reported by ESPN's Stephen A. Smith.

Smith's reporting veracity was called into question, and short of revealing his sources, had no way to refute Gilbert's charge. Having worked in journalism and been a reporter for the last 15 years, the last several for the Philadelphia Inquirer, it's fair to say he knows what he's doing and has cultivated some sources in that time. While he missed on the on the timeframe, he was correct on the dismissal of Paxon. And it wasn't like it happened years after he reported it would happen. As for the revelations that Gilbert would pass notes to coach Paul Silas or that LeBron James' mother not liking the ownership group, the only people who can verify that are Mr. Silas and LeBron's mother.

As a journalist, he's not expected to expose his sources.

Jeff Van Gundy probably didn't expect to have to reveal his sources either, when according to the Associated Press, he told "......three reporters at the team hotel in Dallas on Sunday night that a referee not working the playoffs called him after the Rockets went up 2-0 and warned that (Rockets' center) Yao (Ming) was mentioned in an online evaluation from supervisor of officials Ronnie Nunn."

This accusation of the referees impartiality and any role that the league office may have played in calls being made against, or not being made for, Rockets' center Yao Ming angered Commissioner David Stern.

Adding fuel to Stern's (rocket) fire, was the fact that Van Gundy was refusing to cooperate with NBA security personnel, who were demanding to know who his source was. So incensed is Mr. Stern, that after fining the Rockets' head coach a record $100,000 for his words, he told the Associated Press: "This is the first case I can remember when an allegation has been made and the perpetrator hasn't cooperated," Stern said. "At this time of year, there usually is a craziness in the land that has to do with referees as coaches jockey for position. This one, in our view, set a new low for that. That's why the fine is what it was and that's why the investigation is continuing."

In a move that may be simply posturing, or a genuine threat, Stern didn't stop short of ruling out permanently suspending Van Gundy from the NBA. When asked about protecting his source, the Associated Press reported: ".....Van Gundy practically rolled his eyes at his refusal to give up his friend during his conversation with league security. "I felt like I was in Watergate or something," he said. When told about reporters who are facing 18 months in jail for protecting sources, Van Gundy laughed and said, "My guy would have to be on his own. I'd cut him loose."

ESPN.com has the full A.P. story - with Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban's role in the drama outlined as well.

Clearly, there are two distinct situations here: Van Gundy has no judicial support to keep from revealing his source to the commissioner's office. If he doesn't, Mr. Stern has the power to ban him from the league, effectively firing him. Mr. Smith, however, is under no obligation, either from his organization or judicially, to reveal his source. Unless a Justice Department special prosecutor is appointed, but I doubt this reporting will have any effect on national intelligence. We are talking about the Cleveland Cavaliers, after all.

Some stats!

2005-04-29T18:47:00.000-04:00

Continuing to catch up on my reading, the most recent edition of GolfWorld had a follow-up on the USGA's letter to equipment manufacturers, "inviting" them to submit prototype golf balls that would fly 15 to 25 yards shorter than the current USGA limit.

While doing a solid job of talking to parties representing all interests (USGA, some manufacturers, Hootie Johnson), they also work in some interesting facts, which certainly fly in the face of the current "golf ball hysteria" emanating from the fringe. From the article in GolfWorld: "One of the reasons the governing bodies may not be in a rush is that distance at the elite level does not appear to be proliferating. The average driving distance on the PGA TOUR so far this year is 280.9 yards - down nearly 7 yards 2004's average of 287.3 yards."

I was surprised to see some evidence - but not surprised the evidence bears out that the game is not in ruins! To be fair, we're not even halfway through the TOUR schedule, so the numbers may change, obviously.

GW goes on: "Additionally, the (PGA) TOUR'S scoring average in 2004 was 71.13 - or nearly the same as the 71.18 average in 1992."

I'm really surprised, as I thought with all the hand wringing about the game going down in ruins, that the scoring average was now at 67 or less.

But I would bet that those numbers won't show up on any of the sites that proclaim the game in ruins. The facts wouldn't back up their argument, and we couldn't have that.

Could we?

Just shillin'

2005-04-29T11:07:00.000-04:00

I've been remiss in not stating, for the record (who has the record by the way?), that Unplayable Lies will never be used to shill for a book I wrote, or a story I had published. I won't provide a link to awards I've won (or lost), nor link to another site that is filled with testimonials from my friends and family about how great I am. I won't use this platform to spin the facts, or to hide the truth, even if doing so means I sell more books or make myself look like an expert to my industry.

Weblogs (blogs) have provided all of us with more volume for our voices. Like anything else, they can be used for good or for e-ville.

With your help and input, we're going to get to the facts as often as possible - or point out there are no facts. Once we find them, we'll stick to the facts.

If you read or hear of something that just doesn't ring true, let us know, and we'll do what we can to get to the facts, and expose the myth or lie. We've got some changes to the blog and some news coming soon - more on that later.

Unplayable Lies will remain a shill-free zone. We'll leave the shillin' to the professionals......

Box of chocolates

2005-04-28T19:22:00.000-04:00

With all the different sports "writing" being published, you never know what you're going to get. I'm just getting caught up on my reading this week, and some interesting finds around the 'net.

PGA.com's Steve Pike assembled a good business of golf piece, reporting on the optimism that Callaway has with their new management team and new strategy for product rollouts, the pain the glut of golf courses is causing course operators in Michigan, and a comment from a manufacturer on the current golf ball hysteria: "Acushnet Company Chairman Wally Uihlein said the paradigm shift to today's "power game" of golf has resulted from (a) introduction of lower spinning high performance golf balls; (b) introduction of oversize, thin face titanium drivers; (c) improved golf course conditioning and agronomy; (d) physiology of players (bigger, stronger); (e) improved techniques and instruction; and (f) launch monitors and customization of equipment."

All of those reasons paint a pretty compelling picture of why the "power game" is in vogue. If anyone thinks that one of those is far more responsible than the others, check their agenda. I'm guessing you probably won't have to; as soon as they open their mouth, you'll know their agenda. I still haven't seen any evidence that the game is in ruins, but maybe someone will provide some facts for that argument soon.

Very happy to discover management at SI.com did some post-publishing editing on a piece, that I believe (I can't remember for sure, so I may be incorrect) was originally titled "Cheaper by the Dozen" - "My final thoughts about this year's Masters". It was first published on April 18th, then "updated" on the 24th, with one thought removed. Instead of 12, (hence the "dozen" and movie reference), there is now 11. The missing remembrance was a very unprofessional comment about golf equipment manufacturers, with the hope that Hootie Johnson would mandate a Masters' ball. I'd link to the original, but thankfully, it got pulled. Good for SI management (better late than never) and good news for sportswriting - I still hold out hope that facts make a comeback and editors reign in writers from making absurd commentary.

I read a lot of absurd commentary in magazines, papers and websites every day. I don't call attention to it very often, for the same reason that ESPN doesn't show streakers and other goofballs interrupting sporting events to get their 15 seconds of fame - I don't want to encourage them.

....and the good

2005-04-28T17:06:00.000-04:00

A good friend of mine has his master's in journalism from Northwestern - I know him from our days at FOXSports.com. When he saw the "Reporting Speculation" piece a few days ago, his instant message comment to me was, and I quote: "Journalism today sucks".

That perspective is hard to argue with.

However, there are some very recent examples of good reporting around us.

First, check out Jayson Stark's look at the highly-compensated but underperforming Philadelphia Phillies. He interviewed people and quoted them, he used evidence and stats to support his writing, and he took a balanced approach. No wonder he's one of the best baseball writers going. He and the ESPN.com brass get a double tip of the hat for allowing a less than favorable review about Larry Bowa, who happens to be a newly minted analyst for their colleagues' television show, "Baseball Tonight".

Another example comes from the venerable Jerry Potter, who assembled a balanced look at the reasons why everyone is smacking the golf ball, but without a club.
Potter writes: "There are multiple reasons for the increase (in ball flight distance), but essentially it's the outgrowth of improvements in technology and improvements in the conditioning of tournament golfers. Amateurs do hit the ball farther, but the U.S. Golf Association says the average handicap has improved from 16.5 in 1995 to 15."

He interviews Dick Rugge from the USGA, who says, "The USGA doesn't believe the ball should be rolled back........My request (soliciting prototype golfballs from manufacturers) was part of a research project that's been going on for 2½ years."

He also talked to a manufacturer (they've been fairly quiet since the USGA's letter came out): "It's no longer a disputed fact that there's more than the golf ball that has gotten distance to where it is today," says Uihlein, citing articles by USGA President Fred Ridley and USGA executive committee member Jim Vernon. "It has not been the cause of change in the game. It's unfair to look at the ball as the solution."

And Mr. Potter dove into the stats to provide another perspective: "To be sure, distance is not always the key factor in winning. Only one player currently ranked among the top 10 in driving distance, Tiger Woods, has won this year."

Balanced, fair, impartial reporting. It may be on the endangered species list, but it sure makes you feel good when you see it.

Whose Shot?

2005-04-27T16:41:00.000-04:00

Don't know if your subscription to Sports Illustrated comes with the "GolfPlus" version. If not, and you're a sports fan, not even just a golf fan, but a sports fan, it's worth it - and not because it's free. If you haven't seen the "GolfPlus" version, each week they give someone in the game, or associated with the game, a platform called "My Shot".

I read last week's "My Shot" from Evan Rothman, former Golf Magazine Executive Editor, with one eyebrow raised. The title to the piece was, "If you think the (golf) ball flies too far, here's a way the problem might be fixed." Mr. Rothman wrote that the ASA and USSSA, softball's, "two biggest governing bodies, and they know better than anyone else the knotty problems faced by their opposite numbers in golf, the USGA and the R&A, because their issues are almost exactly the same. But the world of softball may offer a vision of how technology can actually solve a sport's equipment problem.

What is the sport's equipment problem, exactly?

We never really find out - and I've never been shown, or seen or read evidence that there is a problem. But a whole commentary is devoted on how if golf's governing bodies would just follow the lead of the world's softball governing bodies, we'd reach nirvana. This comparison isn't just apples to oranges - its fruits to vegetables.

Anecdotal evidence alert - I've probably played probably 15 rounds of golf this year, have spent 25 hours on the range, probably twice that many hours in the clubhouse and have attended one PGA TOUR EVENT and a Major this year. I ask a lot of questions of golfers and golf fans.

Not once have I heard (admittedly, I don't ask leading questions) a golfer complain about the ball, the distance it flies, the rate at which it spins or the purity of its whiteness.

Not once have I heard (admittedly, I don't ask leading questions) a golfer complain about the distance the club makes the ball go, the spin it imparts at launch, the poor quality of its workmanship or the shininess of its shaft.

Not once.

I have heard them complain about the greens fees, that a bucket of range balls now costs between $5 and $10 (or more), and that the group(s) ahead aren't fixing their divots or ball marks, or that they were on the green in two and three-jacked.

I've heard those things a lot.

Standing around the 18th green on Sunday at Augusta, not one of the patrons all around me claimed the golf ball was ruining the game when Tiger hit his monster drive. Or lamented the quality of short irons when DiMarco almost holed his chip. Leaving the course, all anyone could talk about was what an amazing finish to an amazing tournament, and how amazed we were that DiMarco had come so close, again.

But maybe I should be talking to softball players.

Reporting speculation

2005-04-25T07:35:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately, I won't be able to get all the facts behind the speculation published in the Boston Globe , that the reason why Chicago Cubs' shortstop Nomar Garciaparra suffered a serious injury (severely torn groin muscle) last week is because his body is breaking down due to steroid use.

Bob Ryan, the Globe sports columnist, wrote: Look, I'm hardly the first person to raise the question. When he was with the Red Sox, who was bold enough to link our fair shortstop, a noted workout guy, with the dreaded S-word? But he did go from, like, standard athlete issue normal to ultra-buffed in one winter, and he has been -- there is no other way to say it -- systematically breaking down for the past six years, so you can't help wondering just what he's been putting into his body other than Wheaties and sirloin steaks. If we're going to assume that Mark McGwire's physical breakdown was because of a reliance on steroids, then it would be quite logical to adopt the same line of thinking about Nomar. It's a legitimate question.

It is a legitimate question.

For Nomar. For the Red Sox trainers, who saw Nomar every day, and treated his injuries. For his teammates, the ones who spent seasons with him, and the ones that only spent a few games with him. For the Red Sox team doctor, who treated him, and who administered his physicals. For former roommates and girlfriends. For family and close friends. For business associates, his agent(s), his support team. For acquantenances and childhood friends.

But is it a legitimate question for a newspaper column, without any evidence?

If all those people had been interviewed, and they had or lead to hard evidence that Mr. Garciaparra took steroids, then Mr. Ryan would have the makings of a story, and with further reporting, the opportunity to write a well-balanced, journalistically sound, investigative piece proving that Mr. Garciaparria didn't really earn the batting titles he won, nor any of the other awards he was bestowed while with the Red Sox.

ESPN's Buster Olney wrote: So is it reasonable to speculate? If a player looks suddenly outrageously beefy, should we suggest steroids as a possibility? If a player experiences an explosive tendon or ligament injury, as Garciaparra did, is it reasonable to say that a player who got very big in the middle of the steroid era might have been injured as a result of steroids? Doctors will tell you these type of injuries are classic signs of steroid use. Does that mean, for certain, that Nomar took steroids? Of course not.
Bob is a great and respected columnist. He is not someone who reflexively trashes athletes, and he covered Nomar for a decade. He might know more than he can tell us, and he certainly asked himself all those philosophical questions before he wrote this; every writer has to answer those questions for herself or himself. Personally, I wouldn't have speculated in the same way Bob did, unless there was some very hard off-the-record, not-to-be-printed information to back it up. But that doesn't mean I'm right or he's wrong; I'm not sure there are necessarily any right or wrong answers in this situation.

When I was at ESPN (television), we didn't report speculation on substantive stories. By that I mean, stories that would/could have damaging effects on the people or organizations that were the focus. Sure, a baseball analyst might speculate who a coach would start, or why a player was benched (hasn't been hitting in clutch situations, etc.), but not on more serious matters. In fact, my boss at the time, Jim Cohen, didn't even like to use "confidential or anonymous sources" - his theory was if it was off the record, and we couldn't publicly quote the source, then the evidence had to be overwhelming and further substantiated (from another source) before we put it on the air.

We'd err on the side of caution, and believed firmly that it was better to be second with the news and be correct, then to be first to report a story and be wrong.

There is no reported evidence that Mr. Garciaparra ever used steroids - and he has publicly refuted the notion.

Should the Boston Globe and Mr. Ryan publicly apologize to Mr. Garciaparra for this?

Perceptions part 2

2005-04-21T12:34:00.000-04:00

While working in the ESPN Research department in the 1990's (bias statement alert: you will be hard-pressed to find a group that know more, or care more, about sports than these people), every once in a while, someone would exclaim, "I can't find any stats to back up my assertion!". To which the reply came, "Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good full screen!" (A full screen is tv lingo for a "slide" or "slate" after a highlight or before one that has stats and/or quotes on it.)

We'd all laugh, and the researcher would abandon the assertion and move on to something else.

However, we've all used stats to reinforce an assertion of ours, knowingly (or sometimes unknowingly) leaving out other stats or facts that may refute or provide a different perspective to the perception or assertion.
Lawyers make a living at this - so do writers.
We've all done it, myself included.

But this blog's mission, as you know, is to shed as much light on those assertions or perceptions, and let you the reader form their own opinion.

In a preview of the Shell Houston Open for golfonline.com, an example of the use of stats to support an assertion/prediction:

"This year, however, the word is out that only long hitters need apply. At 7,508 yards, Redstone is one of the longest courses on the PGA Tour and with a combination of rain and heavy rough in 2004, the course played to a 73.065 stroke average. It's no accident that nine of the top 10 players in driving distance are in the field this week: look for the winner to be a long hitter. Short hitters such as Fred Funk have taken the week off"

All stats are true, but a quick look at the entire leaderboard also shows that 6 of the bottom 10 in driving distance are in the field, and of the 2 of the 4 who aren't, one is a champions tour player (Tom Kite) and the other is primarily a broadcaster (John Cook). One of the remaining 2 is Fred Funk.

The preview continues: "The first 10 weeks of the year were dominated by long hitters, but since Bay Hill the courses have been a lot tougher, with accuracy becoming an important item. Look for a combination of both happening at the Shell Houston Open -- length will rule the day at Redstone but you won't get away with wayward tee shots."

A much more balanced statement, with facts from several perspectives to back it up.

It's a nit-pick, but an important point - there are several more players in the bottom 25 in Driving Distance that are in the SHO field (just as there are several more players in the top 25 in Driving Distance in the field) - and any one of them could win.

Tougher course setups return the TOUR to the adage, "It's not how far but how many". A good field this week should make for some entertaining television - let's hope the rain holds off.

Perceptions

2005-04-20T08:49:00.000-04:00

On a daily basis, whether on television, radio, newspapers or now the internet, and perhaps especially the internet, the preconceived belief or perception in "reporting" too often pushes its way through, with statistics and anecdotal evidence used to reinforce those "perceptions".

For example, every year Sports Illustrated puts together a very thorough review/prediction for each of the 30 Major League Baseball teams - they title it "Scouting Report". One of the more interesting features, something they've done for the last several years, is "Enemy Lines: an opposing team's scout sizes up team X". Smart, and always an enjoyable read. SI also developed a "Player Value Ranking" or PVR for all players on Major League rosters coming out of the spring.

SI picked the St. Louis Cardinals to win the National League Central, but the Enemy Lines scout wrote, "They don't have a top pitcher other than Mark Mulder......"

Hmmmm....

A further scan of the preview, reveals SI's PVR assigns an 18 to starting right-hander Chris Carpenter. Each team has 5 starters, and there are 30 teams, so Carpenter is rated 18th out of 150 starters. Another way to look at it, if every team as an "ace" or no. 1 starter, Carpenter's ranking implies that 12 other team's ace isn't as good as he is. Mulder, interestingly enough, is ranked 24th. Each member of the Cardinals starting 5 won at least 15 games last year. Not that I make a habit out of quoting ex-presidents, but I guess it depends on what your definition of "top" is.

The scout wraps up his assessment by stating, "This was a mediocre club last year until they ran the table at the end. I don't see them doing that this year, but you can't discount the Tony LaRussa - Walt Jocketty magic."

A quick look at the stats reveals the Cardinals were 27-23 at the end of May, then went 60-21 in June, July and August, before recording an 18-13 record in September and October, including a 7-7 finish.

Two perceptions blown up - the team won 105 games in a tough division (Astros won the wild-card, Cubs, Reds, etc.), was mediocre for two months (4 games over .500), was dominating for three months (39 games over .500) and were very mediocre at the end (.500 over the last 14 games before the playoffs).

But the preseason (2004) perception that the Cardinals weren't as pitching talented as the Cubs and Astros leads to a pre-determined mindset at the end of the year or the beginning of the next, that their season was a bit of a fluke, they got hot (lucky) at the right time, and the manager and general manager, with a heavy-dose of moondust rubbed in, pulled out a miracle.
A miracle to the tune of 105 wins.

Mr. LaRussa and Mr. Jocketty must own several tons of moondust, because in their 9 seasons of working together in St. Louis, their teams have finished first five times, with only two seasons below .500. With that line of thinking, John Schuerholz and Bobby Cox must have a genie working for them, to explain the Atlanta Braves' domination of the National League East over the last dozen years or so.

Part of the Solution

2005-04-18T14:44:00.000-04:00

Has there ever been a better marriage than the union of sports and the internet? Just having the ability to surf online papers, magazines and television content from around the world can lead to eye strain, but provides hours of enjoyment.

While surfing today, I arrived at one of my favorite sites, TravelGolf.com. Digging around, I started reading a very insightful piece from Ron Garl, who as it turns out, is a highly decorated golf course architect from Florida.

As I started to read his latest special contribution to TravelGolf.com, a look at how the aging baby boomer generation will impact golf over the next few decades, I almost fell out of my chair. We've all known or worked with people whose only contribution on a daily business is to point out the problems, complain about the issues, and offer no solutions or ideas on how to solve the problems. That said, we have all known people that speak out against the hysteria, people that refuse to be silenced by those seduced into salivating sensationalism, those that actually take the time to offer well thought out, positive-thinking, progressive ideas and solutions to those very same problems or issues. They understand that finger-pointing and character assassination poisons the process in reaching a sensible solution.

Mr. Garl fits into the latter category - he offers a refreshing approach on how to grow the game of golf, instead of writing that the game is in dire straights, the manufacturers and governing bodies don't care about the tradition of the sport, and the golf ball is ruining the game. Mr. Garl offers insights such as: "The people in my field, golf course architecture, should be part of the solution and not part of the problem. There are already enough golf courses that are unplayable for 95 percent of the golfers in the world.
Anyone can build a tough golf course. What's needed is the creativity and imagination to design a course that is challenging for the better players while being playable and engaging for the less experienced."

Hmmmm.......

Mr. Garl continues: "To their credit, the equipment industry has responded positively when considering the baby boomer. They've designed golf balls that fly farther. The advent of the senior flex shaft has helped keep people in the game because they can still get the ball in the air. The various materials used in the club head construction has contributed to the positive experience baby boomers can have.
While golf will most likely always be the most difficult game to play and will never be mastered, it can be made more manageable by these advances and thus more enticing to the aging newcomer. "

As columnist Dave Barry would write, I am not making this up.

Rejuvenated by his thinking, I started to look through his archive of special contributions to TravelGolf.com. I immediately clicked on "Don't be afraid of advancing technology when designing courses - embrace it ." written at the beginning of the year.

While a few of the bigger names in golf, having spread their business dealings to golf course architecture and club equipment making, continue to beat the drum (ball) that today's golf ball is ruining the game, they have been joined by some lesser-known golf course architects, relying on the same misinformation to espouse a supposed simple solution, to a problem no one has factually proven exists (if there have been facts, and the proof is there, my apologies in advance. But it would seem safe to say, there's no need for an apology).

Mr. Garl has obviously not adopted the mob mentality. He writes: "First of all, we have to realize that as architects, we are facing challenges that are coming faster and faster. Technological growth is part and parcel of our job. While advances may be accompanied by media hype, I would suggest that changes don't quite rival the single biggest advance of going from hickory shafted clubs to steel. That was the quantum leap. From that point on, the advances have been more evolutionary than revolutionary."

But wait, it's the ball's fault!

Mr. Garl continues: "We also have to realize that there have been technological advances that are well beyond our control. Let's face it: today's instructors are light years ahead of their predecessors, with the use of video cameras, computers and overlays. In years gone by, all a golf teacher needed was a good eye to locate the obvious flaw. In this day and age, technology is the key to instruction. This of course, has lead to the superior conditioning of professional golfers. And the movement towards increased strength and fitness of the professional player has caused a trickle-down effect to the rank and file golfers, leading to an improvement in their skill level."

But no, it's the ball, isn't it?

"Then there are the advances on the turf grass side of the game. Henry Picard, the winner of the second Masters in 1937 was asked what he thought was the single greatest improvement in golf equipment. He answered quickly and decisively: "the mower." He had a valid point. The ability to closely mow grass has fostered club technology that abets flying the ball higher and farther. It has changed putters. They now have reduced loft, as the need to get the ball up and rolling on the shaggy greens of days gone by has become a distant memory. The impact not only in mower technology, but better grass and sand has made the playing surface conducive to better play."

I encourage you to read the rest of his article, and his others as well.

Embracing and utilizing the technology that we've developed for a better experience for all involved? Rational, thoughtful, reasoned thought.

Next time you happen to stumble upon a golf course architect arguing that the golf ball is ruining the game, remember Mr. Garl.

I won't forget him.

Due diligence?

2005-04-15T05:48:00.000-04:00

In the last two weeks, the USGA has sent missives to club and golf ball manufacturers, either inviting them to actively work on new prototype balls that would reduce the distance they can fly, or telling them they were going to be conducting research into clubhead moment of inertia, clubhead adjustability and spin generation.

These efforts, as the USGA wants you to know, is to ensure that skill is still the principal factor for success, not technology.

I know of no one that would disagree that their public motive is sound. However, are they looking at all the many ways that "technology" impacts the game? From four inch tees, to course maintenance, to cutting-edge chemical supplements and the latest in physical training equipment, "technology" is behind them all. It seems that the USGA is focused on the golf ball, with an every-once-in-awhile glance at clubs and an even rarer look at all the other factors listed already. At the very least, clubs and balls should always be lumped together when researching any possible "equipment" modifications.

In a story Thursday in Golf Digest, by Mike Stachura, writes that others are suggesting that enough attention isn't being given to other factors that impact distance:

Dean Snell, senior director of research and development for golf balls at TaylorMade-Maxfli, suggests golf balls have been at the USGA limit for decades. What's changed? Golfers, specifically golfers at the elite level who now swing faster with longer clubs with less fear. Snell says he's seen ball speeds increase as much as 30 miles per hour in the last 15 years, despite the ball's performance on the initial velocity test not changing. Tour level balls now spin off the driver just like two-piece distance balls do. That's the primary change, not some new enhanced ball speed characteristic, he says.
The antidote to the USGA's distance concern is a challenging course setup, Snell says.
"The concern is that the courses are going to be made obsolete," says Snell, who explained that TaylorMade would be working with the USGA on the ball issue in a confidential manner. "It is very easy to not have to move tees back 70 yards. Instead, give them some challenges by cutting the fairways different in that 290-320 range. If you want to try to hit it 340, you can do that, but if you don't hit it straight, then you could be in some trouble. To make a change to the golf ball and everything that would have to happen to make that work, well, that part of it is very, very tough. It's a lot easier to grow some rough."

And in a USGA newsletter from March, Jim Vernon, USGA Executive Committee and Chairman, Equipment Standards Committee, reminds us that: ".....in May 2002, the USGA and R&A adopted a "Statement of Principles" that said any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. It said that if such increases occur - as a result of technology, athleticism, improved coaching, course conditioning or a combination of these factors - the organizations will immediately seek ways to protect the game". But Mr. Vernon goes on to detail how the USGA and the R&A have taken steps in relation to spring effect of driving clubs, clubhead size and shaft length - and now the ball is being singled out, with manufacturers invited to develop prototype balls that fly shorter.

Where is the research efforts into other factors? Why is there not more effort being spent in understanding the effect of course setup at championship events?

I asked the extremely well-respected Fred Klauk, Golf Course Superintendent at the TPC of Sawgrass, who oversees the Stadium Course set-up for THE PLAYERS Championship, if there have been any improvement to championship course set up. "It’s improved a whole lot" Mr. Klauk said. "Greens are cut like pool tables, fairways are cut like greens and tee boxes are cut like fairways used to be. It’s been a quantum leap (in improvement) over the last the last 25 years."

I also asked Mr. Klauk, if he or anyone on his staff measure fairway roll distance or rough conditions, like greens are measured with the Stimp Meter. He said they don't,, but did say, "Roll is determined more by the weather, but we try and get the fairways firm, but weather determines that."

So why isn't the USGA measuring roll conditions, fairway conditions and rough conditions? If they are, no one I've talked to, either in the golf course maintenance industry or at the PGA TOUR, is aware of it (but in complete fairness, I have not spoken to everyone).

Mr. Klauk told me that during the year, the Stadium course greens are rolling between 8.5 and 9.5 on the Stimp, but during THE PLAYERS Championship, they roll between 11.5 to 12.5. If green speed can make such a huge difference in determining a winner, and is so closely monitored, why not fairway and rough conditions? Isn't that an area in need of research, if ensuring skill is the principal factor for success?

Mr. Jeff Bollig, Director of Communications for the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, concurred with Mr. Klauk on the significant improvements in golf course maintenance in the last 25 years. "Golf course conditioning has changed with the scientific and technical advancements made, from better products to better processes." He also said, "I’ve heard championship courses do mow to increase roll conditions”, but Mr. Bollig is unaware of any roll condition measurements or criteria used by championship events.

Having worked with the GCSAA* in the past, it would seem hard to believe there is an association of more cooperative people, so wouldn't they be a good place to start if the USGA wanted to really research all the factors that enable the top players in golf to achieve great distance off the tee?

If due diligence is one of the building block for the USGA's role in governing the sport, it would seem that this is an area in need of further investigation.

*Mr. Bollig and his team at the GCSAA were gracious enough to share some research with me, and also set up a forum for me to see feedback directly from golf course superintendents. I will share that information and feedback in the days to follow.

Tradition unlike any other

2005-04-13T10:07:00.000-04:00

Late Tuesday afternoon, GolfWeek.com broke the news that the USGA sent a letter, which GolfWeek.com had obtained, dated Monday, April 11th, to all the golf ball manufacturers, inviting them "to provide the governing body with prototype golf balls that comply with modified rules that would reduce maximum golf distance by 15 or 25 yards".

Imagine sitting in your office, or at home, when there's a knock on the door. A government representative says, "Hello! Hope you and yours are well. We wanted to let you know that there may be a beating. We're inviting you to spend some time and money on developing and constructing an instrument that will be used to administer the beating. Not accepting our invitation will be made to look as if you're being difficult, and may jeopardize your current situation. Once the instrument has been thoroughly tested to see if it lives up to our standards, whatever we decide those are, we will use the instrument to administer the beating. Have a great day!"

Golf ball manufacturers got that knock Monday. The USGA is the governing body, and the manufacturers are the ones that are going to take a beating.

As I wrote earlier, in "Wondrous Week? Maybe not", ".....why aren’t we looking at scaling back (if even possible) club technology, and course technology that leaves these courses in pristine condition, set up for maximum scoring, and also a height and muscle mass requirement for players? I mean, if someone is too big and can hit the ball miles, isn’t that unfair to some of the smaller players?" the fact that the USGA is so focused on the ball makes it easy to see what the agenda is. Especially when so many other areas that impact golf ball distance are not being looked at (to the best of my knowledge).

In the story, GolfWeek reported that the USGA wrote, "We have identified multiple parameters that can be altered to affect ball distance. We believe that it is now appropriate to give golf ball manufacturers an opportunity to participate in the research project and thereby become involved in the rule change process if that becomes necessary. We believe that the best way to do that is to invite ball manufacturers to make prototype golf balls of their own design and construction that comply with modified Rules. These balls will be evaluated and tested by the USGA and the R&A under various conditions, both laboratory and on-course, to determine the effect that ball rule changes could have on the playing of the game."

Certainly reads like they're focused on the golf ball. Why just the golf ball, and not other factors that impact ball distance?

For instance, agronomy. Why aren't they looking into how courses are set up on the Tours to maximize roll conditions? These are not the same set-ups that you and I play, unless you play prefessionally. Technology in mowers and equipment used by courses where tournaments are played is state of the art. If the fairways were not set up to maximize roll, how many yards closer to the 15 or 25 yard pull back would they be?

How exhaustive has the investigation been into other external factors that allow for maximum ball distance? Has the tee and the impact on their size in relation to launch angle with the new drivers been examined? What would be the effect if the long tee was banned?

The answer as to why the investigation hasn't been more broad, to get a firm understanding from all perspectives why Tour players are hitting the ball so far - is as clear as the motives behind the USGA's letter to golf ball manufacturers.

There are only six primary companies manufacturing golf balls. Nike, who will be launching their new line of high performance balls soon, Titleist, Srixon, Bridgestone, Callaway and Maxfli (TaylorMade). Primary means companies that in addition to making balls for the average hacker, they are also making balls used on the PGA TOUR. And of those six, roughly half are producing high performance golf balls. A seventh golf ball making company, Wilson, currently doesn't have a ball in play on TOUR, but makes balls for the average player.

How many companies are producing golf clubs? More than 20 "significant" companies, and literally countless others that are smaller, specialty club makers. And many of those equipment makers/endorsers are some of the most revered names in golf like Nicklaus, Palmer, Player and Norman, who also by the way have been beating the drum the loudest about the evils of the golf ball.

So what is the USGA targeting? The golf ball. Why? Well, they're the minority, the few who are significant players in the golf ball industry; easier to destroy a few who are the true innovators, than the many, who obviously have strength in numbers and public profile clout.

The underlying message in the letter sent from the USGA, it would seem, would be to make it look like the golf ball manufacturers are an active and welcome part of the process, so when the USGA announces a golf ball rollback, it'll make the whole process look more democratic and one of consensus building. Like the McCarthy Hearings - if you didn't show up to testify, you were branded. If you did show up to testify, you took your beating.

An unplayable lie, either way.

*For a great read on Hootie Johnson and his role in the Golf Ball Inquisition, check out www.thesandtrap.com for "Hootie's Balls".
I'll have more on the USGA letter and the golf ball manufacturer and the average golfer reaction in the days to follow.

Evolution I part 2

2005-04-10T10:09:00.000-04:00

Where was I? Oh right, today's golf ball is ruining the game. We've established that today's PGA TOUR players are bigger. And that increase in size has corresponded with an increased exposure to instruction over the last 10 to 15 years.

Since we've been using 1980 as our generation benchmark, we need to get an idea of how many golf academies/schools were in existence then. Today you can't swing (pun intended) a club without hitting a golf instructor at a golf school or academy. We're not talking just your every day PGA club instructor either, we're talking household names: David Leadbetter, Butch Harmon, Jim Flick, Rick Smith, Scott Sackett and Dave Pelz are as ubiquitous as any names in golf. While some of the aforementioned have been "teaching" golf or providing golf instruction since before 1980, none had "academies" until the very late 1980's to mid-1990's.

While there are no known lists of golf schools/academies that went out of business, a review of this golf instructional site reveals that there were only two started before 1985. Seems that nearly all the rest have been started in the last 10 years though, and that number continues to rise. Heck, even the worldwide leader in sports, ESPN has gotten in the golf school game. Not surprisingly, there's a whole website devoted (problem is, there are whole websites devoted to everything) to, you guessed it, golf instruction.

I asked Scott Sackett, Director of Instruction at the PGA TOUR Golf Academy, how many "academies" or "schools" there were when he became an instructor in 1986, "There were probably only five that I had ever heard of. But when we were doing our research in preparation to start our academy (in the late 1990's), we read that there were over 2900 golf academies and schools at that time."

In fact, one of the famous instructors above, Jim Flick, is also a member of the World Golf Teaching Hall of Fame (he was inducted in 2002, as the 9th member). I've been following golf for a long time, and had no idea there was a HOF for golf instructors.

While I'm on the discussion of things I didn't know about, (only as it relates to golf, otherwise the list is way too long), I had no idea there was a United States Golf Teaching Federation, or that its governing organization is the (say it loud) World Golf Teaching Federation. Turns out the WGTF has sub federations in Canada, Australia, in Europe, in Asia....pretty much, as the name implies, all over the world. The USGTF has 13,000 teaching members, according to their website. How many did it have in 1988? It wasn't even a federation then. So roughly 800 or so new teachers come on board each year.

The PGA has also seen sizable growth in their ranks over the last 25 years - 12,000 members in 1980 has grown to 28,000 in 2004. Keep in mind that not all of those professionals are teachers, and unfortunately, the PGA doesn't have those numbers broken down, to clarify. But, they acknowledge that the majority of them are teachers, either practicing or trained as, so doing the math, we're looking at a yearly increase of one thousand new professionals (or more) each year for the last 25.

Golf 20/20 reports that over 30% of all golf facilities in the United States fall into the learning and practice category.

If you want to improve your golf game, it is obvious that there are more than enough instructors to help you do just that.

And not only are the number of golf instructors/teachers going up, the training tools used have improved as well.

Like other sports, the use of video as a training tool has blown up golf instruction. No golf academy or school that considers itself top-flight (no pun intended) is without the use of video analysis to fix your game. I asked Mr. Sackett what in his opinion has made the biggest impact on golf instruction in the last 25 years. "HANDS DOWN, VIDEO!" he nearly yelled. "It has given golfers the luxury of showing where the golf club is throughout the swing". But hasn't there been tons of instruction available to golfers for the last 50 years? "Yes, from lesson books to magazines to the Golf Channel to direct-to-your home instructional videos and the internet today, you can (could) purchase your way to learn the game. But all that still doesn't let you know what you're doing, like video."

Given the increase in amount and quality of instruction, how can we not strike the ball better, with better accuracy, and for longer distances?

Wondrous Week? Maybe not

2005-04-07T14:35:00.000-04:00

A funny thing happened on my way to a great week of sports theatre. It got off to a great start - Illinois rallied from a first-half brain-melt to tie UNC at 70 in the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship game - with a chance to hit the go-ahead bucket, but the Tar Heels held on, powered by Sean May's inside game, which Illinois had no answer for.

And steroid addled baseball? Well after they suspended several minor-leaguers, and one major-leaguer, for failing drug tests, opening day/week action was tremendous, with the Red Sox - Yankees staging dual come-from-behind victories, the Tigers' Dmitri Young banging out three home runs, and John Smoltz was pounded by the Marlins in his return to the starting lineup after being one of the best closers in baseball the last two years.

Wednesday was the day to read every last morsel on the Masters. Waking up Wednesday morning is like Christmas Eve day for golf fans - all the presents (players) are laid out for you, and the anticipation is nearly peaking.

Then I see this Associated Press note package, with tidbits on what Phil Mickelson is serving at the Champion's Dinner, what Arnold Palmer was up to, etc. And then I read this little blurb on Jack Nicklaus. Well there goes the great Wednesday I had been enjoying. Here is the section, courtesy of the A.P., with the obvious issues in what he's suggesting in italics by me:

Ask Jack Nicklaus about golf balls, and be prepared for a long answer. On the eve of his 45th Masters, he bemoaned the fact that golf courses should have to spend millions to change every time the ball gets better. Nicklaus said he wasn't suggesting that the Masters implement a universal ball as has been suggested, but that manufacturers dial back on some of the distance gains of recent years. "Just have a golf ball go 10 percent shorter or 12 percent or whatever it might be," Nicklaus said. How does this happen, exactly? Does the head of technology at Nike or Titleist just walk into the lab, turn the knob on the bunson burner to “12% less”, and Voila’!, golf balls start being produced that travel 12% less for some players, and 15% less for others, and 27% less for hackers?
"You could do that and everybody will still have the same characteristics." Really? Where is the science, Mr. Nicklaus? Somebody, anybody, just show me the facts. Show me how this is easy – and cheap. For companies that spend millions and millions of dollars each year on research and development (launch angles, spin rates, etc.), is anybody so naïve to think it can be done with the turn of a knob? And doing so is based on the premise that the golf ball IS RUINING THE GAME, a dangerous assertion to which I still haven’t seen any surveys or research that supports it.

Nicklaus said course owners and designers are always having to adjust to new technology, especially when it comes to golf balls that go longer and straighter and still spin more. "They went from making an average golf ball or a better golf ball or longer golf ball, they could certainly take it back the other way very easily without very much cost," Nicklaus said. Again, where is the science? I think it’s fair to remind everyone that Mr. Nicklaus has a course-design company. He also has a club equipment company, Nicklaus Golf Equipment, but doesn’t make balls. But here’s what Mr. Nicklaus Golf Equipment company promotes on his website, about their new drivers: “AIRMAX ML DRIVERS, available in 380cc and 440cc heads crafted in forged CRYOGENIC SUPERBETA TITANIUM are designed to help golfers of all levels add distance by increasing their launch angle and decreasing spin. Increased launch angle translates to extra carry and distance while airborne.” Let me get this straight - he’ll promote using whatever technology (his product) you can to get extra distance, BUT, golf ball technology should be reduced? I wonder what he’d say if NGE made golf balls too?

Nicklaus often talks about the golf balls he played during his prime, some of which he said weren't even totally round. He was one of the proponents of the Cayman ball years ago that went a limited distance to allow golfers to play shorter courses. Today, Nicklaus said the golf ball has gotten beyond the ability of golf courses to adjust. That includes Augusta National, which he said is always in danger of being overpowered by new balls. I’m just a broken record here – but where is the evidence? And why aren’t we looking at scaling back (if even possible) club technology, and course technology that leaves these courses in pristine condition, set up for maximum scoring, and also a height and muscle mass requirement for players? I mean, if someone is too big and can hit the ball miles, isn’t that unfair to some of the smaller players?

"If the ball has the same characteristics to it then we can bring thousands of golf courses back into play as championship golf courses without change," Nicklaus said. "What difference does it make if a guy hits it 330 or 290 if everybody has the same relative distances?" Would Mr. Nicklaus, who Mr. Johnson below refers to as “the most successful bomber”, wanted or had as much success if ball and equipment technology hadn’t improved in his day from the days of Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan?

Pretty bad, I think, but, play starts tomorrow (Thursday), and I’ll keep reading. Then I get to the annual Q & A with Augusta National Chairman Hootie Johnson. I’ve cut out the extraneous stuff he said, and focused on questions relating to the anti-chri…. I mean golf ball. Again, thoughts written in italics.

Question: Jack Nicklaus was in here yesterday and said that you asked him, "What are we going to do about the golf ball?" Are you concerned about the flight of the golf ball? Of course, the question isn’t framed by “all the technology, from clubs, to balls, to courses, to fitness”.
HOOTIE JOHNSON: Yes, we are.

Question: Are you studying or do you have any thoughts or long-range plans?
HOOTIE JOHNSON: We are hopeful and we encouraged that the governing bodies and the Tour, Tim Finchem, that they are addressing this problem. It is a problem for the game, not just for Augusta National and The Masters tournament. We are hopeful and encouraged that progress is being made.

Question: How serious are you about using your own ball for this tournament?
HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, we are not too far along with that. It's an option that we would not want to take off of the table. We are hopeful that the governing bodies will do something about what most everyone in golf considers to be a serious problem. No matter how much I might admire Mr. Johnson, but who exactly is “most everyone in golf”? Where are the surveys? Where is the research?

Question: Any discussions about lengthening the golf course in the next several years, possibly even the 12th hole?
HOOTIE JOHNSON: Possibly the 12th hole?

Question: Yeah.
HOOTIE JOHNSON: We haven't thought about the 12th hole (laughter). That's another one of those, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Yes, we have some options on lengthening the golf course, and we are seriously looking at those.

Question: Could I belabor this point about the golf ball a little further? Yes, because it is an easy target that you don’t have to put much thought behind before you join the lynch mob, storming door to door to string up the first ball manufacturer you come across.
HOOTIE JOHNSON: Sure.

Question: The USGA, their representatives have said to me that they represent all of golf; they don't think all of golf has a problem with the length the golf ball is going. I doubt this USGA person (again, where is the attribution?) said they (USGA) represent all of golf – perhaps they said their job as governing body was to represent all of golf, not just TOUR players and tournaments that host them.
HOOTIE JOHNSON: Say that again.

Question: The USGA representatives have said to me, we represent all of golf, and we don't think there is a problem with how far the golf ball is going for all golfers, including amateurs and whomever else. Having said that, it appears the problem is only on the PGA TOUR, if there is such a problem. Would you rather the PGA TOUR address this issue and do something about it; is that what you're telling us? If there is such a problem – hey! That’s a great idea, let’s get, as I’ve said and written many times before, the stewards and caretakers for the game, from amateurs to pros, governing bodies to manufacturers, together and determine if there really is a problem. If there is, then the right people are in the room to best determine what steps need to be taken to rectify any issues.
HOOTIE JOHNSON: No. I think I'm telling you that the governing bodies are addressing this problem, along with some collaboration with the Tour.

Question: Mr. Johnson, do you have a prototype ball in place or in development, and what would it take for your organization to say, enough is enough, we're going to play a standard ball in our tournament?
HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, we haven't decided what enough is enough yet, and we don't have a prototype ball.

Question: When Jack was in here yesterday, he expressed the opinion that Augusta National has changed from the second-shot golf course that Bobby Jones wanted into more of a bomber's golf course.
HOOTIE JOHNSON: He's the biggest bomber we know, the most successful bomber, but go ahead.

Question: Is there a way to bring more shot-making value back in and stretch it back this way?
HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, that's what we attempt to do. Had we not made some of the changes, let's just say, at 7 and 17, they would be driving the green or in the bunkers. On 7 and 17, I had a guest down here in March, 17 years old, about 5'10", 160 pounds. He hit pitching wedges into 17 and 7. A lot had been written some years back that we were trying to Tiger-proof our golf course, and we are not worried about Tiger. We are worried about these 17-year-olds (laughter).

Question: That said, a lot of the players have commented that the length on the course limits the number of players who can win. Do you agree with that? Who are these players? Where are the comments? I haven’t seen them – in fact, I’ve seen just the opposite. But in fairness, I haven’t read everything.
HOOTIE JOHNSON: No, I don't agree with that. I think our greens are probably the toughest part of the golf course. Someone stands up against the tide of golf course designer frenzy!

Rain today – no play as of yet - I bet it's the golf ball's fault.

Wondrous Week

2005-04-04T14:48:00.000-04:00

I don’t think I’ve ever used the word wondrous before, but then again, I don’t think I’ve ever written a blog that more closely resembles a Larry King column either, so today is a day of firsts.

It is a wondrous week.

Opening week of baseball season. Today, Monday, is Opening Day. The Red Sox and Yankees renewed their rivalry last night, as ESPN smartly opened their baseball season with a prime-time cannon blast. This is the week that every baseball fan hopes, thinks and believes that their team will be playing in late October, capping off a magical season in the Fall Classic. It was the 18th century poet Alexander Pope who wrote, “Hope springs eternal”. Undoubtedly, he was referring to the human condition, but many baseball fans, no matter how small their team’s payroll is, believe he was writing about their condition.

From one influential Pope to another - all week we’ll get to marinate in the accomplishments and good will of Pope John Paul II, who will be buried Friday. Some great leaders rally the masses by the force of their words, other great leaders motivate the masses by the power of their deeds; John Paul II was the rarest of great leaders - he inspired people by his words and his actions.

Tonight the NCAA Men’s basketball champion will be crowned. After three weeks of sometimes hard-to-believe basketball, where heart-stopping finishes ruled, the consensus two best teams in the country will battle for the title. Unfortunately, too many games when the two best teams squared off turned into “flipper games” (when you spend much of the time flipping around to the other 300 channels in search of any compelling programming) shortly after halftime. Remember USC vs. Oklahoma in the BCS title game? But Illinois vs. North Carolina may live up to the hype.

And it is Masters week. Setting aside the fact that we’ll have to endure hearing, “a tradition unlike any other” 31,000 times, the tournament at Augusta National is the crown jewel of this fantastic sports week. Green Jacket. Rae’s Creek. Azaleas. Amen Corner. Bobby Jones. I could go on, and I am doing just that in my head, but you get my point.

To get properly prepared for Masters week, check out Jaime Diaz’s “Fact or Fiction” piece in Golf World. Mr. Diaz succinctly summarizes why TOUR pros are able to do what they do so well, “Today's world-class players are so dialed in to the correct combination of ball and club, as well as refined mechanics and increased fitness…”, and also details how Augusta National is a tougher and truer test of golf now than it was before its renovations in 2002.

Also in Golf Digest, the usually dialed in Tim Rosaforte follows his “Peashooter” piece from THE PLAYERS Championship with an interesting look at why this year’s Masters Champion may be wearing a green jacket size closer to 42 regular than 46 long.

And PGATOUR.COM has a GolfWeb wire story on how we may be witnessing a golden era in professional golf with the TOUR talent pool so deep, and so many great players playing well at the same time. Johnny Miller gushes, “It reminds me of the glory days of the '70s when we had almost 12 players that were just guns, guys were in their prime, and they were tough down the stretch. We really haven't had that on the world golf scene. You've got so many top stars now. It's almost impossible to pick who's going to be the gun. It's an exciting time."

I guess Mr. Miller hasn’t heard that today's golf ball has ruined the game.

Nothing can ruin this week.

The sky is falling!

2005-03-30T14:22:00.000-05:00

But you knew that.

Planning a trip to the great state of Arizona to play some golf with friends, I typed over to the Arizona Golf Association site, and while looking around, found that they have an online magazine. As I'm scrollng down the page perusing their offerings to determine if I want to subscribe, I see the title of one article "Out of Bounds", with the tease line reading: "Will the tech boom bust golf like bowling and tennis?".

Perhaps this was a sign that I shouldn't plan a golf trip to Arizona - golf might be busted by then, which forces me to ask the most critical question: who will refund my money?

I didn't know much (and still don't) about the author, Geoff Shackelford, other than he's a contributor to Sal Johnson's site, GolfObserver.com, and well, an author. (Do check out Frank Hannigan's use of the facts to blow holes in Alan Shipnuck's latest missive in SI Golf Plus on Tiger gaining 10 to 12 yards "overnight" off the tee with his new Nike golf ball - the designer of the ball claims he has the stats to prove that Tiger has actually gained 28 to 30 yards off the tee with said ball - we're waiting!)

Turns out Mr. Shackelford has his own site, aptly named "GeoffShackelford.com", and his bio states that he's written nine books (I'd like to tell you what they all are, I even have one, but unfortunately the link to his book titles on his site, at this time, is not working) and has "studied" golf courses all over the world, has taught classes on golf course architecture and has moved into the business of consulting on new golf course design and also consults at "select classic" courses in the western U.S.

I'm no Carnac, but it is apparent that golf course architecture and development is near and dear to Mr. Shackelford's heart. It's always important, as our mission states, to shine a light on any agendas and allegiances when investigating the facts.

The article that is in the Arizona Golf Online Magazine are "excerpts" from Mr. Shackelford's preface in his new book coming out in April, "The Future of Golf in America". I'm very hopeful that Mr. Shackelford follows his assertions laid out in the preface with some facts, because he makes some accusations that are devoid of supporting evidence. So to be fair, that may be forthcoming in the book, but solid facts are not available in this excerpt.

For example, "Golf has spent the last sixty years subtly expanding and modifying its greatest asset, the course, to accomodate technology and the perception that buying the latest equipment to get a distance boost is the sport's ultimate source of pleasure." Was there a survey done among golf historians or experts to determine what Golf's greatest asset is? If not, how can that assertion be made? In an informal survey of colleagues in sports media, most of them in golf, they came up with a few other assets they deem more valuable. Such as golf being a game of personal integrity, or a game of true sportsmanship. Others suggested its greatest asset is its rich and long history, or the fact that it is a sport that all ages and skill levels can enjoy. Courses didn't rank in anyone's top five - maybe it would have gone in their top 10 - but it certainly wasn't close to being tabbed the sport's "greatest asset". Granted, my survey isn't scientific, but it isn't just my opinion.

Next up, Mr. Shackelford writes, "Would baseball (I think he means Major League Baseball) redesign its old ballparks and alter the size of the diamond to accomodate a new "hot" baseball?".

Hmmm......

The extreme stadium makeover mission that Major League Baseball has been on over the last 15 or so years has been pretty obvious. From Camden Yards to Safeco Field, big old (and some not-so-old) ballparks have been torn down and new, smaller and more hitter-friendly parks have been built to replace them. When MLB wasn't building a new park, they were renovating the old one, like Busch Stadium, where the Cardinals went from hitting 75 home runs in a year in 1984 to Mark McGwire hitting 70 by himself in 1998 (the ball wasn't juiced, but he apparently was). Why the makeover? To make the ballparks more fan friendly, but to also make them more hitter-friendly, to help make the game more exciting.

While MLB didn't change the dimensions of the diamond (still 90 feet from base to base) to satisfy a "hot" baseball, they used new technology (retractable roofs, improved artificial turf, etc.) to make the game more enjoyable. Has it ruined Baseball? Just the opposite - attendance has never been better.

Major Leage Baseball made a conscious decision to "alter the playing field", and they were helped in doing so by technology. New technology has helped "alter the playing field" on the PGA TOUR - a 48-year-old Fred Funk can compete with and beat the strongest field in golf in a Major-type event. New technology has also helped "alter the playing field" for hackers like myself - the game is more enjoyable to play, and I want to play more because of that.

However, using technological progress to make any comparison of golf to Major League Baseball is specious at best. Technological evolution didn't start 10 or 15 years ago in golf - it has been happening since the game was first invented - and has helped golf reach new levels of popularity every step of the way since the sport's inception some 500 to 600 years ago!

Mr. Shackelford continues with "Tennis' mistakes are obvious.....in retrospect, so are bowling's - both embraced technology and power to grow business, and, as a result, tennis' participation dropped from 34 million to 13 million while bowling halved the number of its avid players over the same time period."
At least there were some stats in there to help his argument, but much is left out. What or who is the source of this information? Is it credible? What time period is this referring to? Does participation mean people playing the sport, and/or how many games they play each year? Participation in baseball in the United States dropped significantly from the late 1980’s through the 1990’s, according to the SGMA’s “Superstudy of Sports Participation”, but that has nothing to do with technology and power. But should we blame technology anyway?

Mr. Shackelford ends with, “The ingredients exist to save the sport (golf) by returning to a few common sense values that return the focus to fun over consumerism.”

Save the sport? An ESPN sports poll cited in Golf 20/20 revealed pro golf had the largest increase in respondents claiming to be fans at 16.8% between 1996 and 2003. The next highest total was NASCAR with 8.7% and all the other sports registered a decrease in that same time.

Save the sport? A National Golf Foundation report found there was a slight gain in rounds played in 2004, the first time in three years. The poor economy was blamed for the previous years’ decline, which certainly makes sense.

Technology ruining the game? Now that doesn’t make any sense.

I'm all for getting the pertinent golf constituents, the stewards for and of the game, from governing bodies to manufacturers, amateurs to pros, into meaningful diaologue and discussion about where the game is at and what steps need to be taken in the future to help assure golf's continued popularity. But assigning blame in one direction without the facts nor the evidence to support the accusation, does more harm than good.

And the game deserves better.

Jedermann

2005-03-29T11:09:00.000-05:00

Fred Funk is Jedermann - which loosely translated from the German language means "everyman". Like all of us.....one of us.

Mr. Funk is someone we can all relate to. At 48 years of age, he wins the "fifth major" - the oldest player to have won THE PLAYERS by seven years. A former golf coach. A former newspaper circulation supervisor. With a par putt on the 72nd hole, Jedermann held on to a 1-stroke lead for the win.

Listed in his bio as 5'8 and 165 pounds, Jedermann battled winds gusting into the 35 mile-an-hour range, and the strongest field in golf on one of the toughest courses on the PGA TOUR.

We all marveled at Jack Nicklaus nearly 20 years ago, winning the 1986 Masters at age 46. But that's Jack. Most wins in the Majors (most second place finishes too), and arguably the greatest player the game has seen.

But Mr. Funk, our everyman, two years older than Jack was, winning THE PLAYERS?

Since (whisper) "technology" gets blamed for ruining the game of golf (I'm still looking for a shred of evidence that the game is in ruins, but more on that later), shouldn't technology get some credit for providing golf fans with one of the most incredible wins on TOUR by our everyman?

Shot-making a bygone era? How about that new TaylorMade 3-iron from the 16th fairway Monday afternoon that set up a birdie, the stroke that would provide the winning margin? Mr. Funk spent a lot of time in the fairways on the Stadium Course, hitting nearly 86%, tying him for first in that category.

After rain delayed play and wet conditions eased play the first few days, the wind, along with some real rough*, put the teeth back into the course. Shot-making was at a premium, and those who were able to skillfully maneuver around the course, were richly rewarded.

The evolution of golf helped make it possible for a 48-year-old to beat the strongest field in golf. If you listen to the golf critics, (what they lack in numbers they make up for in decibels), technological advances in golf have made it impossible for all but a few to win on TOUR. When THE PLAYERS final leaderboard has Mr. Funk at the top, followed by a Tom Lehman, a Scott Verplank, a Joe Durant, a Luke Donald, what is impossible is seeing the game in ruins.

*Golf critics who long for the days of hickory shafts and featheries, bemoan that with today's (whisper)"technology", courses need to be "tricked-up" (their words, not mine) with long rough, which ruins the design. I did a quick search in the dictionary, and this is the definition for the word rough: as an adjective, it means "difficult to travel through or penetrate" in addition to "difficult". As a noun: "uneven ground covered with high grass, brush, and stones; specifically: such ground bordering a golf fairway". If it wasn't supposed to be "rough", it would be cut at fairway length and I guess we'd call it "easy"?

Whistle-blower

2005-03-21T19:43:00.000-05:00

Coleen Rowley. Jeffrey Wigand. Sherron Watkins.

Three of the most famous "whistle-blowers" of the last 15 years, people who exposed problems in each of their organizations, which spurred industry-wide changes in governmental intelligence gathering (FBI), the tobacco industry (Brown and Williamson Tobacco) and corporate governance (Enron).

When someone turns you in, you've been "ratted" out. A Rat - you know, the hairy little long-tailed creature that eats garbage and lives in the sewer.

This week, add the name Bruce Pearl to the list, although his whistle blew 16 years ago.

First, a disclaimer: 17 years ago, I received my B.A. from the University of Iowa.

Around that time, Mr. Pearl, who is now the head coach of the upstart University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee men's basketball team, was in a heated recruiting battle with the University of Illinois for Chicago prep star Deon Thomas. Mr. Pearl was an assistant for Iowa head basketball coach Tom Davis, who had brought Mr. Pearl with him when he left Boston College to take over the Hawkeye program.

If you haven't heard already, Mr. Pearl's UWM basketball team staged two upsets in the NCAA tournament, first beating fifth-seeded Alabama, and then knocking off his alma mater, fourth-seeded Boston College to reach the Sweet Sixteen. Their opponent? Illinois, the school Mr. Pearl blew the whistle on back in 1989.

The story and storyline is getting maximum play this week. Illinois was ranked number one most of the season, and no 12 seed has ever won the title, so on paper, this shouldn't generate that much interest.

Except Illini alumni everywhere view Mr. Pearl as the devil incarnate, and the game will be played in Chicago, in the old Rosemont Horizon. The Illini fans' sentiments are understandable. Whistle-blowers, even when they are blowing from an internal position, quickly become pariahs. But when you turn in one of your biggest rivals? Hatred.

Illinois was not found guilty of anything in the recruitment of Deon Thomas. During the subsequent investigation, however, they were found guilty of "lack of institutional control", and a year after the investigation began, the NCAA put Illinois on two years' probation, imposed a postseason ban in 1991 and scholarship and recruiting restrictions.

The hatred is manifest in "mainstream" media too. Check out this piece in the Chicago Sun Times by Taylor Bell, who has been covering Illinois basketball for years. His "history lesson" involves talking to two people - Mr. Thomas, and his high school basketball coach. There are also quotes in there from Mr. Thomas' mother, but they are from Mr. Thomas' recollection. So much for the journalistic approach of examining both sides of the story. (Mr. Bell also wrote a book on Illinois High School basketball - available for purchase).The Chicago Tribune does a better job of reviewing the facts, but still resorts to inserting some unsourced allegations.
To top that, the fine journalists at the Decatur (that's in Illinois) Herald-Review have this piece linked off their main page, from their Executive Sports Editor, amazingly enough. Columnists have evolved like most sports journalists today, where opinion means everything and facts mean less. But for an Executive Sports Editor (the boss) writing a piece in which he describes Mr. Pearl as "....... as one of the game's great weasels, a sneaky, conniving guy who went to inexcusable extremes when he lost out on a high school recruit."

Hmmmm......

Has he ever met Mr. Pearl? I have, and he didn't seem any different than most of the NCAA Division I basketball coaches I've met and interviewed.

Even the Houston Chronicle gets involved, and their reporter writes "Many coaches involved in the Big Ten at the time resented Pearl's shady tactics. Some still refuse to shake his hand after games." No source is given for this information, but we do know of one coach that refuses to shake Mr. Pearl's hand after a game, and that is Jimmy Collins, who was then the assistant coach at Illinois, who is now the head coach at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Some could mean one, but some means more than one.

In the end, the University of Illinois was put on probation for violating NCAA regulations. It was the third probation for their athletic department in ten years, after their football program was found guilty of violations in 1984 and 1988. Obviously, they did something wrong, or Mr. Pearl's accusations that triggered a bigger investigation would have led to a finding of no wrong-doing, without sanctions or penalties.

Unfortunately, unlike the other whistle-blowers named above, Mr. Pearl's accusations and the resulting investigation did little to change the dark side of college basketball.

Mr. Pearl has said he was just trying to do the right thing. In the world of college basketball, where competition for players, wins, donors and their pocketbooks is fierce, doing the right thing may be self-serving, or it may merely be altruistic. In this case, if you're from Iowa you'd swear it was the latter. If you're from Illinois, you'll go to your grave claiming the former.

Check out Underscorebleach.net, which cites a variety of sources, including the official NCAA investigation and punishment letter.

The author has pictures of himself on the site wearing Fighting Illini hat(s). The site also refers to Mr. Pearl as the "rat".

Where's my whistle?

Yes, I was blown away

2005-03-14T14:08:00.000-05:00

That makes two of us, Mr. Norman.

It is not often that I am "stunned" by what comes out of an athlete's or celebrity's mouth. All of us, at one time or another, have said something without thinking it through, and then felt the remorse of having wish you hadn't said it. Athletes and celebrities, (sometimes they are one in the same), being humans like the rest of us, are not immune from this remorse.

If you did not read this blog's mission statement, (or if you did), I wrote "I'm not going to attack anyone personally, nor will I attempt to embarrass or humiliate anyone. But I am going to vigorously work to debunk myths, statements and positions that are supposedly based on fact -- but in fact, are not. I'm going to reveal the possible agendas of the author or originator of the myths, statements and positions, to ensure the proper perspective is given for each assertion."

Back in early February of this year, in an article on PGA.com, Greg Norman, a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame, was talking about advances in golf technology, and was quoted thusly: "Put the restrictions on us. We are the best players. We are physically fit, we know how to play. "Don't let us take advantage of technology like we have. Give it out to the 50 or 60 million golfers of the world. Let them have fun and bring people back to the game.
"To ask regular golf clubs to lengthen their course for one tournament a year costs a lot of money. "It should go the other way. Leave the great golf courses the way they are, put restrictions on us with the specifications of the golf ball and everyone is going to save money. "I'd love to come back to Royal Melbourne (where he was playing when he was interviewed) with the golf ball we used in the 80s and 90s. This course played tough then, week in and week out."

Color me surprised when, while watching TOUR players hit balls near the pins at the Honda Classic this weekend, only to see many of them roll off, up popped a commercial campaign from MacGregor, featuring Mr. Norman. This campaign of television commercials has been running since MacGregor came out with their new MACTEC driver in January of this year, and while I'd heard about them, the fact that I use a television remote control like a Play Station controller means I rarely watch commercials.

Mr. Norman, who has been one of those sounding the alarm on the detrimental effect of today's golf ball on the game of golf, says for the camera (and I quote), "It's (the MACTEC driver) added 15 yards to my drives, and I was blown away." Hmmmm....so technology restrictions should just be applied to the ball, but if you're a manufacturer of clubs, and you're paying me to use my stature in golf to provide a testimonial for your product, then.....restrictions don't apply?

Upon further investigation, a quick surf over to MacGregor's site, reveals the entire commercial campaign. I am struck by many of the words Mr. Norman uses in his narration, but this quote really stands out, "I need the most powerful technology I can get my hands on."

So in January he says he needs the most powerful technology available, then in early February, he asks not to allow himself and other TOUR players to take advantage of (ball) technology.

He made money by saying the words in January, and he makes money by saying the different words in February.

Mr. Norman's company is part golf course design, part equipment pitchman, part turf grass development, part vintner, part yacht maker - I could go on, but as Shark.com clearly states, his company is diverse - but one part it isn't is golf ball manufacturer.

In fairness to Mr. Norman, he has cited the improved physicality of today's TOUR players, the amount of support today's players get over players 25 to 50 years ago, and other things that have produced long-distance golf shots. I've begun an in-depth look at all those things, (see Evolution I), and in the days to come will also investigate the impact of today's perfectly manicured golf courses, the plethora of swing coaches and club and ball technology on the game.

I'm prepared to be blown away.

Evolution I

2005-03-07T12:01:00.000-05:00

Tiger vs. Phil attempting to scale the blue monster on Sunday - what great theatre that was. All weekend long these two men just pounded the ball. On some tee shots, Tiger nearly swung out of his shoes - the strength of both was on display hole after hole. Watching reminded me of the final 18 holes of David Toms' dismantling of Chris DiMarco for the World Golf Championship - Accenture Match Play Championship. Nick Faldo and Paul Azinger, attempting to inject some energy into a match that was completely one-sided, started debating which TOUR players would have the advantage if golf were a "contact" sport.

Final round at Doral was the closest thing to a cage match we're going to see. Watching also brought to mind Judy Rankin's comments while Mr. Faldo and Mr. Azinger were rattling off players names that might come out on top if tackling were legal; Ms. Rankin pointed out that it seemed like most all the players near the top of the World Rankings were "big men".

Hmmm.

With the incessant Sturm und Drang of how today's golf ball is ruining (or to some how the ball has ruined) golf, Ms. Rankin's claim certainly calls attention to the impact the size and strength of today's players have on the distance the golf ball travels. A quick look at the top 10 on the money list at the end of the 2004 season, and the average size of the players is:
6-1 3/4 inches tall and 182.8 lbs. A little thin to play linebacker in the NFL, but with some additional weight training......
For comparison, we checked out the top 10 on the money list ending in 1980, 25 seasons ago, which is in the time range that defines a "generation" (its also, conveniently, the first year the PGA TOUR starting keeping official stats): 5-11 1/10 inches tall and 180 lbs.

All but one player in last year's top 10 is six feet or taller (Sergio Garcia), while three players out of ten from 1980 were over six feet.

Unfortunately, body fat and muscle mass are not listed from 1980 or 2004. But the visual facts complete the story. Scientific? No. Telling? I think so.

Like nearly every other sport, athletes have gotten bigger and stronger. There has been talk of raising the basketball rim for NBA players a foot or two, as the game is now played above the rim. In the NFL, 29 out of 32 teams had offensive lines that averaged over 300 lbs. in 2003. In 1980, very few NFL offensive linemen weighed 300 lbs.

Bigger, stronger and faster - faster swings, faster clubheads. More speed at impact forces the ball farther.

But big and strong PGA TOUR players is just one of the ingredients that make the ball go far.

Open for all

2005-02-28T11:05:00.000-05:00

In a recent interview with the Guardian newspaper, Peter Dawson, the chief executive for the Royal and Ancient, the organizing body of the British Open, said, "The R&A is not in the business of keeping women out of the Open" when revealing that the British Open is going to review the rule that does just that.

At first glance, this doesn't seem that surprising, given that the other three majors, all U.S. events, have no language in their rules forbidding women from competing. And the PGA TOUR is also devoid of language in its rules that prohibit women from playing in their events.

But it is surprising given the R&A's historically stodgy reputation; earned or given, that perception has been an inspiration for those looking for something to complain about in golf - or those just looking for a story t0 write about.

But if the R&A does take out the word "male" from the qualification rules, allowing women to one day play against the best male golfers in the world, on some of the most famous courses in the world, on the islands that represent the birthplace of golf, it would signify a sea change in the sport.

Women would have to qualify to play, just like men.

On the PGA TOUR, women can play in events without qualifying, by getting invited on a sponsor's exemption. Michelle Wie played in the Sony Open in January, just missing the cut.
Her participation drew comments both pro and con, and the controversy helped draw attention to the event. One negative theme that ran throughout the coverage, and was evident when Annika Sorenstam played in the Colonial in 2003, was that her participation took a spot away from a PGA TOUR player.

But did it?

Straight from the PGA TOUR Media Guide is the All-Exempt Priority Rankings, used to select tournament fields. Number 12 reads as follows: Sponsor exemptions (a maximum of eight, which may include amateurs with scratch handicaps or less), on the following basis:

A. Not less than two sponsor invitees shall be PGA TOUR members or otherwise exempt.

B. Not less than two of the top 30 finishers and ties from the last Qualifying tournament, as well as 2-20 from the 2004 Nationwide Tour money list, if not all of them can otherwise be accommodated.

Doing the easy math, the above states that four of the eight exemptions can be extended to just about anyone, and they don't have to be affiliated with the PGA TOUR. Who established this criteria? The 9-member PGA TOUR policy board, on which four active TOUR players sit. It's in the rules - the rules that were authored in part by players and can be changed, by players.

The reason why tournaments were allowed to have sponsor exemptions was to be able to drive publicity for their event - having a local favorite or a celebrity (their definition) who can play golf at a high level does just that, helping to sell tickets and merchandise, and helping keep that tournament in business year after year. This provides another week of paychecks on TOUR, for some of the same players who complain about the exemption.

mission

2005-02-11T14:48:00.000-05:00

The character on the classic television detective show Dragnet, Joe Friday, famously made the line "Just the facts, ma'am" part of our pop culture lexicon. Dispassionately, Mr. Friday just wanted to know the facts - what happened, when did it happen, etc. It was the law's version of journalism's "who, what, when, where, why and how". Unfortunately, in today's world of "who can out-scream the other" talk-show format that dominates every platform, from television to radio to chat rooms (where screaming is done in CAPS!), "just the facts" really is just a quote - it most certainly isn't journalism.

"Unplayable Lies" will attempt to get "just the facts" behind all sorts of claims, unsubstantiated "truths" and inaccurate statements in the world of sports, generally, and the world of golf, specifically.

I'm not going to attack anyone personally, nor will I attempt to embarrass or humiliate anyone. But I am going to vigorously work to debunk myths, statements and positions that are supposedly based on fact -- but in fact, are not. I'm going to reveal the possible agendas of the author or originator of the myths, statements and positions, to ensure the proper perspective is given for each assertion.

I did not major in Journalism in college - my major was Broadcast Communications. I found the study of journalism boring. But this definition of journalism was woven through my course work in broadcasting: "[W]riting (reporting) characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation." Unfortunately, our world is no longer shaped by the presentation of facts, it's shaped by opinions -- sometimes interpreted correctly from facts, sometimes not, too often not interpreted from fact at all.

With a firm belief that skepticism is a virtue, Unplayable Lies will stick to "just the facts." That is, and will be, our mission.

So we shine the light first on Jack Webb's character Joe Friday and his famous quote. Or was it? Check out the real truth at my favorite web site for dispelling urban legends: http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/dragnet.htm