Ernie DeGraff of Fortuna, CA, God love him, is still working on the FedEx Cup. He responds to a Bunker item in the current Golf World issue that talks about drooping ratings and the networks' desire to have the Tour fix things. I think Ernie's come up with a pretty exciting finish:

To guarantee that a winner is determined in the Tour Championship and on the last day, the Tour can establish the field for each of the big three tournaments preceding the Tour Championship using the top FedEx Cup points list. The Tour Championship should consist of the top 32 players in FedEx Cup points. At the BMW Championship just prior to the Tour Championship, if there is a tie for 32nd in points (unlikely), have a playoff to determine the 32nd player. At the start of the the Tour Championship, all points are removed, and the "cut" for each round is 1/2 the field. If there is a tie, i.e. for 16th, 8th, or 4th, there is a sudden-death playoff. The final round of the TC would include the top 4 players, and the winner would be the FedEx Cup champion. Simple, isn't it!

I like it, Ernie.

--Bob Carney

John Hawkins, lightning rod, television star, and our own Angry Golfer, doesn't live on praise. He'd starve. But here's some anyway from Golf World reader Gene Galantini of West Orange, N.J.:

Please let John Hawkins know that his suggestion in moving the Senior Players Championship to the Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass is the best idea I’ve heard all year. Who knows, I might actually watch it.

Seconds after that letter arrived, however, came a more typical one from Larry Lomako of Albuequerque.

Having played in the pro-ams when Albuquerque was a Senior Tour stop, I can tell you these guys are good. The Angry Golfer has forgotten that the objective of a golf tournament is to make money for all concerned and if not money, good value to all concerned with the tournament, including spectators. I am disappointed to have the Angry Golfer say that the Champions Tour players game..."is neither a sport nor entertainment"...it is unfair and inaccurate. We would love to have them return to Albuquerque.

John's point is a good one, though. There are courses that can get you to watch, almost regardless of who's playing. Augusta National is one. The Stadium Course is one. Pebble is one. And I think Whistling Straits would be, too, if events were played there more often. The Senior Players at the TPC? I'm there.

--Bob Carney

Golf World reader TSD has had it with Tiger. Had it. Had it! Apparently Jaime Diaz's story on Tiger's plans for course design work sent him over the edge.

I received this week’s issue of “Love Letters to Tiger.” (Formerly known as Golf World.) I was sickened to read yet another puff piece about Tiger, ''High Standards bode well." Who are these people comparing Tiger to Mozart? For the record, Mozart was a child prodigy/genius. He was the superior of any adult, while he was a child. Tiger was the superior of other kids while he was a kid. It’s like saying Tiger was playing Tour events when he was seven--not hitting balls on the Mike Douglas show. Tiger’s refusal to give any other designers an ounce of credit (no nods to the greats like Tillinghast, MacDonald, Mackenzie) again demonstrates his Grand Canyon sized ego. Is anyone else tired of Tiger’s weekly efforts to keep himself in the media every week⿿the media he loathes unless they can help him make more money⿿..

I sure hope Kim and Villegas can win more so we can have more real journalism instead of another Love Letter to Tiger’s design skills before one of his courses opens⿿.

Dear TSD. Mozart once said: "I pay no attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings." Mr. Woods may not be a genius of the same mold, but he shares that mindset. He follows his feelings and they, coupled with his talent, have led him to 14 majors and a boatload of money. Will he do the same with course design? I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past him. Like Jack, Tiger has acknowledged the advice and counsel he got from Pete Dye, who belongs in thet category of architects you mentioned.

I get your point. We produce a lot about Tiger. Some people tire of it. But Tiger is our Babe Ruth. He is the straw that stirs the industry, which is okay, and not a reason for a Requiem.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Walter Iooss)

Reader Joe Burrell of Brighton, Ontario, responds to Golf Digest's "Golf and Money" package in the October issue by resurrecting a question the industry tends to ask itself in difficult times: Does a round of golf need to be 18 holes?

In your October '08 issue, you published a series of articles under the heading of "Golf and Money". Firstly, let me commend you on the quality of those articles: they were very interesting, informative and "right on" in many respects. However, I would like to weigh in on the discussion, and make the point that I think the two most important factors bearing on the declining numbers of people playing golf are money, and time.

1. Golf is too expensive for many younger people. There are not enough opportunities for young people to play golf often enough, for a reasonable sum of money. If we define often enough as merely 2 or 3 times a month, then, many young people cannot afford to spend $200 or $300 per month to play golf. These costs would include green fees, and, in many instances power carts, golf balls, gasoline to drive to the course and other incidentals.

2. The other factor is the time that it takes out of one's day to play a round of golf, including driving to the course, waiting to tee off, playing a 5 hour round (average for many public courses), having a sandwich afterwards, and then driving home. This just about kills the entire day.

I have a suggestion to make, which addresses both these problems, and, although radical in nature, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a wealthy entrepreneur who loves the game were to implement my ideas, going forward. Let me share my thoughts with you.

Who says that a game of golf has to be 18 holes, anyway? I believe that it was not started as an 18 hole game, but later evolved into that. Why not, going forward, invent a form of golf (let's call it "speed golf") that is played over 14 holes? These would be regulation length par 3's, 4's and 5's, and it should be possible to cut at least an hour off of the time it takes to play a round of golf. Courses could actually be designed as 14 holes, with enough land left to add 4 holes, if the experiment were to fail. The courses would encounter less costs in taxes and maintenance, and the financing costs would be less for the actual building of the course. The other side benefit would therefore be cheaper green fees for the players.

Incidentally, I believe it was Jack Nicklaus, who, some time ago, mused about the concept of converting 18 hole golf courses into three 6-hole units, and making golf a 12 hole game. My suggestion to add a form of golf designed as a 14-hole game isn't sacred to me; Jack's would work equally well.

I know that the golf traditionalists and purists will be appalled at my suggestion, but golf is rapidly becoming a game that only older people and people who are more affluent play. Let's make it easier for young people to come into this wonderful game, and to stay in it for a lifetime.

Great points, Joe, and as a "traditionalist" myself I have no problem with your idea. To say it's time for golf to get creative is an understatement. Personally, I think 9-hole rounds are underrated. (Play 4-hole matches and still have a hole left for a press or "playoff.") Leagues tend to be 9-holes and are loads of fun. At our club, the 11th hole ends at the clubhouse and hundreds of rounds are played in 11 holes. Most of all, why can't courses with 18 offer all of these options, if the layout allows? Want to play six with your kid? No problem. Play the back nine on Sunday morning at the crack of dawn? Sure. I know Bob Baldassari, the innovative golf director at PGA Golf Club in Port St. Lucie is looking to create a "menu" of options that make it easy for golfers of all kinds to say yes to both the time and dollar commitments.

This fall the industry will announce a new player-development initiative. I'm confident that initiatives like the one you recommend will not be far behind.

--Bob Carney

Michigan reader David Buckley was among many who took Jerry Tarde up on his invitation to send suggestions or tips. After reading David's tip, I'm impressed again with how much our readers think about this game, about every detail and nuance of it. Here's the tip:

Being a golfer I've often experienced many rounds where I notice my playing partners having a difficult time deciding who is closest to the hole, when on the green. My tip will help in determining which ball is closest.

You have two balls on the green. Your partner asks who is closest to the pin. This is what you do: Draw an imaginary line on the green that would connect the two balls. Now go to that line and stand on it at a point that would allow another line to be drawn from the pin this line, intersecting it perpendicularly. From that point whichever ball is closest to you is closest to the pin.

For everything else, here's my tip: On any golf shot, putt or not, if you have to ask who is closest, don't ask; hit. The guys in the group behind will thank you.

--Bob Carney

Golf Digest reader eader Duncan Harris of Calgary, Alberta shares an epiphany he's had about ball position that's led to better contact and scores.

I have a comment on ball position that should help amateur high handicappers (like me) hit the ball more solidly. For year I have followed the conventional wisdom of moving my ball position based on the club used. Driver ball position was at the left heel, with ball moving back in the stance for other clubs until mid-irons were in the middle. For me this has resulted in very solid contact with irons and very inconsistent contact with driver and woods.

Harris points out that the rationale for moving the ball foward with the driver forward is to strike the ball on the upswing. The problem, he says, is that in attempting to hit the wood or woods on an upward arc, one will inevitably swing more out-to-in, already a problem for most amateurs. He suggests a different system:

I have started positioning the ball in the center of my stance for all clubs. My contact with the driver and the fairway woods is now much more solid and consistent, while still getting acceptable height on my shots. I think the majority of high handicappers could benefit from this.

Golf Digest teaching editor Chuck Cook, just back from competing in the Italian Senior PGA Championship, had this reply to Mr. Harris:

Your premise is fine for any player with an early release. The low point in a competent swing is under the left shoulder. Generally the ball position for most irons shots is adjacent to the front cheek, thereby catching the ball on the downswing and from the inside. With the driver the ball should be under the left shoulder to catch the ball at the bottom of the swing. Players with a lot of "lag" can play the ball more forward and catch the ball on the upswing--which increases distance--and hit the ball from the inside as long as the shaft is still behind the lead arm. For players with an early release you idea of moving the ball back can work. Hope this helps.

In short: Late release, ball position more forward with woods; early release, more toward the center.

Thanks for the comment, Duncan.

--Bob Carney

Golf Digest reader Donald G. Klein was one of the first to reply to  Editor Jerry Tarde's request for suggestions and story ideas. Klein wants stories on handicapping, specifically on one question: Why do high handicappers always seem to win net events?

As a member of a private country club  and a longtime golf committee member, we are always faced with various handicapping issues. For example, when there is a net handicap tournament, I have observed through over thirty five years of observation, the handicapper with a higher handicap will always win the net prize.  The poor handicapper with a high single digit never wins.  They also never win the gross prize either. A golf pro once told me that the purpose of the handicap should be to bring all golfers to a par basis.  There needs to be a scientific approach to finding the right formula for equalization of handicaps in tournaments. I would like to see golf magazines do research, or report on research that may have been done and provide readers with more ideas for tournament scoring, various different types of tournaments etc. that can be played. 

Thank you for your seeking ideas from your readers.

Thanks for the good story idea. So you don't have to wait for the story, we asked Dean Knuth, our professional advisor who is former senior director of handicapping at the USGA to give you his take. Here's Knuth:

Although it may appear that high handicap players win net events most often, it really is because about 60% of golfers are in the handicap range of 13 to 19, so a golfer from the majority most likely will win good percentage of the time just by sampling probabilities. However, there is a "Bonus for Excellence" built into the USGA Handicap System formula, so that lower handicap players do have an advantage--But, there just aren't as many of them, so they often don't win frequently.

If a club finds that certain individuals win more than their fair share, then you might want to look at the Knuth Tournament Point System. It is a widely-used system that reduces the tournament handicaps of players that win or finish high too frequently.