Here's the scoop: Playing golf while walking prolongs your life. On the other hand, it messes up your swing. At least that's what two separate studies announced over the past few days suggest.

The first study of Swedish golfers, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, found that the death rate among golfers is 40 per cent lower than the rest of the population. In short, those folks live five years longer:

Professor Anders Ahlbom, who has led the study with Bahman Farahmand is not surprised at the result, as he believes that there are several aspects of the game that are proved to be good for the health.

"A round of golf means being outside for four or five hours, walking at a fast pace for six to seven kilometres, something which is known to be good for the health," he says. "People play golf into old age, and there are also positive social and psychological aspects to the game that can be of help."

On the other hand, a second study presented to 55th American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) meeting in Indianapolis, followed seven American golfers who walk and determined that their swings deteriorate because of the exercise. From the Medical News Today story:

While walking the golf course is an excellent form of physical activity, this study suggests that it may have an impact on a golfer's swing and performance, gradually decreasing club head velocity and shot consistency. This may be particularly noticeable if golfers carry their bags while walking.

The conclusions of researchers Nick R. Higdon and Eric Dugan almost sounded like a promo for Stack & Tilt:

Over the course of the protocol, the golfers were less able to achieve an appropriate weight transfer to the lead leg. This resulted in decreased club head velocity, which affects the distance the ball will travel. Additionally, the study showed the angles of the lead knee and lead ankle at the top the swing are affected by time. These factors typically affect the accuracy of the shot.

The researchers conclude that golfers who want to walk ought to work out more if they don't want their swings to suffer.

"I think many golfers are realizing that their bodies are the most important tool they have in the golf swing, and that improving physical fitness may be more helpful than expensive golf clubs," said Higdon. "The study suggests that golf mechanics change and performance may decline the longer the golfer walks and swings. Getting in better shape may help golfers combat the effects of fatigue while playing golf."

Taken together the two studies suggest that if you want to live five years longer, get in shape.
Check out our "Fit at 50" story of last November for ways to do it.

--Bob Carney

(Illustration by Christian Northeast)

Fred Brattain of Corona, California, has been following the slow-play debate on the tours, reported on by Jaime Diaz earlier this month in Golf World. Having played a three-hour round (walking) myself this morning and then heard from a friend that he'd played a 5-hour-45-minute round (!) at the TPC at Sawgrass, slow play was on my mind, too. I like where Fred is coming from. It's killing us.

Everyone talks about slow play, but no one is willing to do anything about it. The problem stems from the PGA tour's lack of fortitude. The PGA pros are terribly slow, and everyone thinks they should imitate them. The fact is that a twosome playing a championship course for money should NEVER take more than 3.5 hours to complete a round. I have been playing this game for longer than anyone on any tour has been alive, and teaching the game for the last 30 years. As a teenager in the 60's I carried a +2 hdcp. I have never seen ANYONE who played better by slowing down. If the powers that be want to get the 4 hour round back into existence, the solution is simple. Line up the PGA pros and say, "Gentlemen, the first group off this morning will finish in 3.5 hours or less, or everyone in the group will be DQ'd. Thereafter no group will be more than one shot behind the group in front, or everyone in the group will be DQ'd. This is your only warning." Not only would scores go down, but perhaps all the wannabes on all the public and private courses throughout the US would get the message. By the Way, BRAVO to the LPGA for actually enforcing the slow play rule.

--Bob Carney

Not since our ill-fated change of type size has anything riled Golf World readers like Bill Fields' column on Pres. Bush's decision to quit playing golf during the war. (At least you could read this one). His piece--and Geoff Russell's accompanying comment in Front 9--have drawn a mountain of emails and posts here. Unlike the point size issue, however, there are also supporters. Without further ado, a sampling of your views on the Bush issue:

I get a golf magazine to get information about golf. I will cancel my subscription if I see another article by Bill Fields, unless he apologizes. If President Bush wants to quit golf, while Commander in Chief, it is his right. For you to think it is a slap in the face to golf, is quite a stretch. I don't want to see Bush Bashing in my golf magazine. Since you make assumptions, let me make one, you are just another Liberal media person who prints his opinions instead of unbiased facts.

Donald Shafer
San Benito, Texas

I was disappointed when I read Bill Fields' article that brought Golf World into the political arena and took an opportunity to bash our President. The President believes he is doing the right thing and all that came through the article was Bill's partisanship and an opportunity to take a shot at the President. By the way Bill, the approval rating of the Democratic congress is at an all-time low of 14% or less than half that of the President.

Dave Wilde
Washingtonville, NY

“Spot On!” Bill! As a veteran and political aficionado, I took particular offense at our President’s incredibly hypocritical and lame announcement of “his sacrifice” (stop playing golf) in honor of our fallen heroes and their families. He, and most of the “neocons,” have never “served” on active duty, but eagerly sent our gallant men and women into a war in Iraq which has become a FUBAR of biblical proportions. George Bush could learn a lot about “life skills” from golf and Bobby Jones, by “playing the ball as it lies!”

Rod Yeager
Midwest Section PGA
(Colonel, USAF, Ret)

I do not purchase your magazine to read the comments for or against the President. If Geoff Russell or Bill Fields want to give us their opionions they should find a different forum, like the New York Times or dailykos.
We play and enjoy golf, keep it there.

Michael Dunford
Cheektowaga NY

I would like to comment on Mr. Bill Fields opinion article in the subject magazine concerning President Bush's failure to play golf because of the perception that the Commander-in-Chief shouldn't be playing golf when our military are suffering casualties during the war on terror. I think Mr. Fields very ably addresses the error of that thinking. I think it would have been most appropriate to recommend to President Bush that he read your other article, "Recovery Shots" to understand how golf is helping the rehabilitation process for our injured troops and further suggest that he join some of them during a round of golf. That makes for a win-win situation for everyone.

Tim LaPlaunt
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps (retired)
St. Charles, MO

I am in a slow burn concerning Mr. Fields "Opinion" article of May 23, 20008. Citing CBS News as a news source is a joke. CBS has not gotten anything right since Cronkite retired. Maybe that is where he got the information that President Bush "initiated" the war in Iraq. As I remember, Saddam Hussein had broken the 1991 Gulf War Truce and defied 17 United Nations resolutions over a 12 year period. This included Resolution 1441 that was approved by France, China and Russia well as the US Congress. This resolution authorized the use of force to remove Saddam and his two murderous sons from power.
Seems that we can't get away from you liberal S.O.Bs, even in a golf magazine.

Wm Barry Huckabee
Nashville, TN 37210

Love your magazine, hate the politics. Please let Bill Fields know that we don't read your magazine for a dose of his politics. The letters you printed were predictable, the left loved it the right didn't...stick to golf.

Rick Snowden
Scottsdale, AZ

Thank you all for your comments.

--Bob Carney

Terry Smail of Seattle, who has had a little experience in the area, writes about Tiger's knee.

I am very worried⿿about Tiger's left knee. I've had 10 knee operations—5 'open' procedures including a total knee replacement two years ago and 5 arthroscopy surgeries. Despite all of that, I still play to a nine handicap. Arthroscopic knee surgeries are normally a piece of cake—quick recovery and not too much disruption of the knee capsule. Even with the left knee, which undergoes considerable torque during the golf swing, a player should be able to play golf normally within two to four weeks. The reports of Tiger wearing a brace, and not being able to come back to competition within 6 -8 weeks is indicative of something far more serious than a simple cartilage issue. That does not portend well for his future or for the popularity and the economic health of golf.

Tiger was emphatic about playing in the Open, however: "The rehab is working. It gets really old riding that bike, man. But everything is on schedule. Just trying to get this thing organized for the Open. Right on schedule for that." And when it came up again: "I'm playing."

--Bob Carney

The letters continue to arrive in response Bill Fields' column about President George W. Bush's decision to stop playing golf during the Iraq War, "Golf a casualty when war of words heats up," in the May 23 issue. They also continue, with a few exceptions, to be critical. But as predicted supporters are surfacing.

To start with a one of those, Robert A. Legg of Greensboro, Georgia, writes:

The piece by Bill Fields is perhaps the most political I've read in Golf World in my 49 years as a subscriber. It is also one of the best. I can' t help but wonder about the reaction of Bush 41, who has done so much for the game, to his son's ill-advised pronouncement.

Robert H. Broyles of Oklahoma City had a similar reaction:

Bill Fields is to be congratulated for his courage and style as well as for excellent writing skills so evident in his opinion piece. Mr. Fields is both wise and correct to urge golf and golfers to take the high ground in response to President Bush's ill-advised statement. Although I am not proud of my swing, I am very proud of Mr. Fields and the many men and women of high character who are associated with the sport of golf. I also believe that most of us - from duffers to champions, from foot-soldiers to generals, students to professors - appreciate that golf, like many human endeavors, can provide us with experiences ranging from entertainment to the greatest of moral challenges. Bill, I salute you!

"Salutes", however, were in the minority. More typical, this letter from Bill Schmidt of Tulsa:

I am very disturbed to see you print such an article in your May 23rd issue. Even though it is labeled "Opinion", I was surprised that it was not about PGA issues, but was a typical "Bash Bush" liberal rant, that quoted a very left leaning web site. I enjoy your magazines great stories about the golf tours, but urge you to leave the politics to the New York Times, etc.

Kurt Richeson of Culver, Indiana, echoed that sentiment...

Bill Fields should keep his political opinions to himself and out of this golf magazine. If I want to read political opinions I will read Time. Keep this crap out of your excellent golf publication.

...as did Dick Brandes of Manhattan Beach:

Pleeeze! I subscribe to Golf World to read about golf, not about politics. I get more than enough of that from newspapers and TV. If Fields wants to bash Bush, send him to the New York Times, or tell him to take a hike.

Matthew from Colorado took a slightly longer view:

I don't expect a golf reporter/writer to have a grasp on world or domestic politics, but image seems to be one thing you guys rely on quite heavily. At least President Bush did SOMETHING in the face of a hugely unpopular war to change his lifestyle, including golf, that at first glance looks elitist to everyone else but golf writers.

Halting WWIII would not make sense to you guys. Bush (just the front man) took the heat for this unpopular war that did just that. No news channel, or the public would want to even consider the stakes that this war undertook. Go on consuming your gas guzzling cars (25-35 MPG is NOT good gas mileage, get a clue!!), expensive polyester shirts, carbon fiber shafted drivers with the blessings of 5-10 more years of cheap (by world standards) oil thanks to G.W. Bush and company. After that, some sort of WWIII will result, but at least not now....heck maybe we will even have better alternatives then!!

Political pandering should be WAY below you guys at Golf World, but hey, I guess not, very sad to see.

Thank you all for your comments.

--Bob Carney

Golf Digest Rankings Editor Topsy Siderowf received a letter from Iraq this week reporting on your response to our April appeal to send equipment to the troops there. This letter and Len Shapiro's moving piece in the latest Golf World, "Recovery Shots," about injured Iraq verteran Dan Nevins (below), are worthy subjects for your reading this weekend. Because of men and women like these, we enjoy this Memorial Day.

I've attached some pictures from the golf equipment and supplies that have been donated to the Soldiers of 3-7IN. Several subscribers read the article and have been sending equipment for the past month. The Army is doing a big story on all of the donated equipment. None of this would have been possible without your help in getting the article published. Hope you enjoy the pictures. [They've] decided to build a driving range here because of all the donations. Thanks for all your support!

Best,
LT Matt Setters

Thank you, Matt. (For all of those lucky enough to work in golf, Matt is looking for a job in our industry when he leaves the military....)

Let's end with this from Len's story:

A sergeant in the National Guard deployed in Iraq for 18 months, Nevins was on a pre-dawn patrol riding in a Humvee protected by armor on the sides, but with none underneath. The vehicle was struck by an IED less than a kilometer from the troops' home base; the explosion killed the driver, Nevins' best friend, Sgt. Mike Ottolini, and left Nevins on his back, with both of his badly bleeding legs still trapped in the smoldering wreckage.

Once he had been evacuated to a nearby hospital, there was no choice but to amputate, but doctors initially were able to save his mangled right leg. He had a badly dislocated ankle and scads of shrapnel wounds, but the ankle continued to pain him over the next few years. There were times he wondered if he might actually be better off without it. Last November the ankle developed a bone infection and resulted in what he describes as "an easy decision" to have a second amputation Jan. 23 at Walter Reed.

"I'd actually been making the decision for three years -- should it stay or should it go?" Nevins says. "It was absolutely the right decision. When I woke up from surgery, it was the first time I'd been pain-free in more than three years."

Within three weeks Nevins was fitted for a second prosthesis. Within two months he was back at Olney Golf Park on two prosthetic legs trying to swing a club under [pro] Jim Estes' watchful eye...

(Photo of Dan Nevins: Dom Furore)

I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal. President George W. Bush

Whether George W. Bush played golf or not throughout his presidency while his war raged—CBS News says his last round was nearly two months after the round he cited, by the way—doesn't matter. Golf is not the problem. Bill Fields

Bill Fields' column in the May 23 issue of Golf World, "Golf a casualty when war of words heats up", drew a crowd.

Two Michigan readers, already driven to distraction by the Michigan economy and Detroit mayoral scandals apparently, rose with alacrity to the President's defense. Here's Bill Hobson of Millington:

It stunned me to see how badly Bill Fields' anti-Bush sentiments led him to whiff on the entire point of the President's wartime golf embargo. The only thing Fields got right was the assertion that "golf is not the problem." True. The global fight on terrorism is the problem. The security of our nation is the problem. And if the head of our nation chooses to honor the brave soldiers in even the smallest of ways, why must that gesture be attacked?

Mr. Fields - like most of the established press - refuses to ever give credit to the President for anything. Bush didn't hold up his golf sacrifice in hopes of gaining approval points or to encourage others to forsake the game. He simply cited it as a personal change he has made as Commander In Chief during a war.

GolfWorld would do well to direct its editorial content toward golf-related themes. The attack from Fields belongs in the NY Times.

J. Lawrence Benjamin of Saginaw saw it just about the same way:

If Bill Fields accomplished anything with his column on President Bushgiving up golf he proved that golf writers can find themselves in deep bunkers when trying to make points on the geopolitical landscape. While I expect ignorant liberal whining from the network talking heads, I don’t expect this kind of baseless blather in a golf magazine. It’s clear Mr. Fields will never grasp the full complexity of a global war on terror, but he might try and understand that the president’s decision to give up golf was not out of solidarity for the troops but out of respect for those fighting. There is a difference.

It’s an image that simply doesn’t fly with so many liberal cowards out there crying out for an international group hug. Now can we get back to writing about some golf and leave the arm chair
political analysis to Dan Rather and Michael Moore.

Gene Henry of Hilton Head also protested:

I love GW but subscribe for terrific writing and reporting on GOLF! If Geoff Russell and Bill Fields want to get in the political arena send them to CNN. Or you will find me gone! I did not appreciate their uncalled for shots at President Bush at all. Stick to golf where you are consistently the best!

What are we missing? Have a look at the President's swing.

My experience is that Liberals read and write more slowly. If that's the case, we may hear voices in Fields' defense any day now.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

"You're really doing this? He's going to play the Open course? He won't be able to think straight...Tour pros can shoot in the 80s on an Open course. What does that say for a 7-handicap?" Padraig Harrington

Actually, our U.S. Open contest winner, John Atkinson, is an 8.0 Index, probably a 10-handicap on Torrey Pines as laid out for the Open. Reader Mark White was fascinated by Guy Yocom's June Golf Digest article about what it means exactly to be a 10 but had a correction on our description of Slope Rating.

I enjoyed the "What is a 10-Handicapper?" article and am looking forward to seeing how regular golfers do on the 2008 U.S. Open course. If Tiger, with his "plus-9" handicap, has trouble with par then these guys will make for some entertaining viewing (keep the medical staff specializing in wrists on standby). I did question the narrative on slope rating: "Poorer players' scores rise exponentially when playing courses with a high slope rating..." The slope in slope rating refers to the slope of a line and not of a curve and as such scores would rise linearly and not exponentially. The article was very informative and should be required reading for anyone teeing it up in handicap golf matches. It would be interesting to have the USGA determine the course and slope rating for every U.S Open course set up. I would expect them to be above the highest ones in America of 80.0 and 155, except the USGA states that the "The lowest Slope Rating is 55 and the highest is 155".

Mark, the USGA, with the help of the Southern California Golf Association, will rate Torrey Pines under Open conditions. We don't know what the rating will be yet, but your estimate is probably pretty close. Dean Knuth, who developed the Slope System for the USGA, says that an 80/155 ratings is possible, depending on course set-up.

Regarding linear versus exponential increases in Slope ratings, Knuth says: "The USGA Handicap Research Team found that most courses do show linear increase in scores as handicaps increase. However, certain courses at the extreme end do show an increase in scores on a curve, not a straight line. Ko'olau in Hawaii was an example, before the course managers eased back on that course's difficulty."

Padraig Harrington is not the only tour pro who thinks our amateur has no chance to break 100. See "This Could Get Ugly" for more comments. What do you think? Make a prediction on the amateurs' scores--that's Atkinson, Matt Lauer, Justin Timberlake and Tony Romo-- and enter a sweepstakes to win your own trip to Torrey.

--Bob Carney

(Illustration: John Ueland)

For Tim Fulton of Davie, Florida, the U.S. Open Contest, and Guy Yocom's June-issue story in Golf Digest on what constitutes a 10-handicapper, unearthed a great deal of resentment about the USGA Handicap system.

After reading “What is a 10-handicapper?”, I once again wonder if the people running the USGA can compete in the “Are you smarter than a 5th grader show?” The obvious answer is no.

Tiger’s challenge was simple;” a 10-handicapper couldn’t break 100.” Leave it to the USGA to lamely try and justify their ridiculous handicapping system. A handicap system is quite easy to do, a 10 is a 10, and a 10 is not a 14 as the USGA tries to make us believe. The reason they have to adjust it upward is because of their silly Equitable Stroke Control system. Their claim that a blow-up hole shouldn’t be allowed to ruin a round or elevate your handicap, is wrong. To follow that same misguided logic, a superior hole; a hole in one, an albatross or eagle, should not be allowed to arbitrarily lower your round or handicap. Using their logic a 12 handicap should never get a hole in one, it’s a birdie and for a 20 handicap it’s a par. Silliness to the extreme.

I recently went out and shot a 45 with 19 putts on the front and came back in 36 with 9 putts; should I throw the 45 out? Of course not, that’s golf, that’s what the USGA doesn’t get. If there is a problem with a sandbagger, every club knows who they are and most chose not to address the problem. Relying on the USGA to formulate a solution is like asking Congress to be responsible, the USGA has no clue.

The USGA bases its whole system on “defining the golfer’s potential”. They assume, wrongly, that potential can only mean good. By definition, potential is the capability of developing into actuality. There is nothing about good or bad, so it is either. That is the true essence of golf, the potential to do good or bad. To throw out the bad through ESC is merely creating “vanity handicaps”. If you are throwing out 10 or 20 rounds, a bad round is not going to affect your true handicap.

When I spoke with the USGA about the ESC system and how dumb it was, I got the classic response,”that’s the way it’s always been”. Which of course doesn’t mean its right; it’s just the way it’s always been.

When you look at the challenge going on at Torrey Pines next month, I wish the participants the best, but there is not a true 10 handicapper amongst them, so the Tiger challenge won’t be answered and will still stand. Shame on the USGA.

John Atkinson, our contest winner, will be at least a 10 when his course handicap is calculated. (His index is 8.0). And if you listen to the tour pros we've interviewed, he's got no chance. Unless, of course, he plays to that potential.

--Bob Carney

When the Golf Digest U.S. Open Challenge is played at Torrey Pines on the eve of the U.S. Open, we'll see a test that is perfect in scale. A 10-handicapper trying to break 100 at Torrey, in front of a gallery, national TV audience and three celebrities playing alongside him, would experience a challenge in any case. But with the course in murderously difficult condition, it will be the golf equivalent of climbing Mount Everest without oxygen. Guy Yocom

Steve Stuthard of Kingman, AZ, writes with a question about Guy Yocom's "What is a 10 Handicapper?" story done in conjunction with the U.S. Open Contest.

Terrific article, but I must admit it made me question my golf-manhood. Mr. Yocom states that "The national handicap index for men is 14.7". I vary between a 14 and 17 depending upon the season and conditions.

I have often read in your magazine and others that the average recreational male golfer shoots between 95 and 100 which certainly does not equate to a 14.7. My own experience also tells me most of the people I play with (or get paired with) are significantly higher than a 14.

How did Mr. Yocom get his numbers? I'm thinking I and all the people I have played with might be better suited for Tennis!

Steve, there are a lot of us better suited to tennis (or pinochle, for that matter.) But to answer your questions: The numbers Guy relied on come from the USGA's handicap guru, Kevin O'Connor. Golf Digest's consulatant on handicapping, Dean Knuth, has this comment:

I think that Steve is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the average USGA Handicap Index in America is around 15.0, but golfers with USGA Handicap Indexes represent a minority of all golfers, because the majority don't have an official handicap. The average score of golfers without USGA Handicaps is over 100. The 15.0 on average would translate to a 17 Course Handicap, the average USGA Course Rating being about 70. Golfers average three strokes over their handicaps, so the average score of such golfers is 90 (17 plus 70 plus 3). But again, if we're talking about all golfers--those with handicaps and those without--the average score would be more than 100.

--Bob Carney