- Golf Digest
- Magazines
- Golf Editors Blog
We Are Golf
But there’s another initiative, less political, less sexy, and a hell of a lot cheaper, that got no attention in Florida and deserves just as much applause. It’s “Get Golf Ready,” the program that, for $99, introduces beginner adults to the game -- five sessions that include lessons, etiquette, on-course play, the whole thing. For the millions of potential golfers who are mystified or intimidated by our clubby ways, it’s a protective cordon that escorts them into middle of the sport. In Orlando, we got the first year update on GGR. Bottom line, it works.
Still in its pilot stage, the program signed up 1,200 facilities last year and “graduated” 17,000 new golfers. Participants reported an incredible 96 per cent satisfaction rate. More than nine of 10 will recommend it to a friend and those nine will continue playing golf. Three of four have played since finishing the program, four of five have visited a range.
This is a big, big deal. There’s a lot of talk these days about whether we can raise enough money to promote our game sufficiently in Washington and elsewhere. But golf’s problem isn’t insufficient funds. It’s insufficient fun. Our game is run by good players -- not only the Tour but teaching pros, amateurs who lead its associations -- and they focus on the sport as competition. (Include Golf Digest here). What do they spend most of their time on? Scores, handicaps, rules., stats. They have created an avid golfer often obsessed with score, frequently intolerant of beginners, and, because they live to break some personal best, study every shot and play as if they have all the time in the world. Our competitions take five and six hours and we talk until our audiences are nodding off about golf’s sacred integrity. To young adults who just want to play the sport, it must be like that Woody Allen quote: “If my film makes one more person miserable, I’ve done my job.”
Listen, our obsession with competition is right -- for OUR half of the sport. But the game’s growth, its sense of inclusion, it’s “We Are Golf” soul, depends upon making way for new players who just want to have fun -- the hitters and gigglers who don’t know Jack Nicklaus form Jack Nicholson, couldn’t identify a square groove if you comped their green fee, and live to hit a drive into the range picker’s cart. Their bible is not Mark Frost’s The Match, but "Happy Gilmore", if they know that much, and golf may be just an excuse to meet a neighbor, play a few holes, spend time with their spouse, walk for a couple of hours, or drink a Corona. They wear shirts with no collars and cargo shorts (OMG!)
Point is, They Are Golf, Too. Can the two groups coexist? They can if “Get Golf Ready” runs interference for the newbies and if the sport- -- serious and casual -- does something about pace of play. If everybody plays quickly, who cares whether the group in front of you is keeping count or not?
-- Bob Carney
More Hot List questions

In your Hot List Issue, there is an article stating that the average golfer would benefit from a 17- or 18-degree 4-wood rather than a 3-wood. So to take it one step farther, would the average golfer benefit even more with a 17- or 18-degree 2 hybrid over a 4 wood? Benedict Yoong, Ventura, CAJohnson replies:
The 4-wood to 3-wood comparison is an apples to apples comparison. Studies conducted by manufacturers have shown that many average golfers de-loft a 3-wood at impact, making it difficult to get a 13- or, in some case, a 15-degree 3-wood in the air. A 17-degree 4-wood would aid carry distance and therefore overall distance. As for your question about a hybrid, that is trickier and really depends on player type and what you are trying to achieve. If it’s pure distance, the answer is no. A 4-wood shaft would be significantly longer than a hybrid shaft and would produce more distance. It also likely would produce a higher ball flight since it has a lower center of gravity due to its size. But if you’re looking for slightly more control and more penetrating ball flight, a 2-hybrid isn’t a bad choice. But you will be sacrificing yards.
Beginning in 2006 or so, square drivers were all the rage...especially from Callaway and Nike. It seems as though they are all but forgotten as 2010's line of new drivers are unveiled. Why the change? If maximum MOI and forgiveness was key then, and square is the way to that end, why isn't it now? thanks! Jon McNary, Rockford, ILJohnson:
Good question. Square and other geometric-shaped drivers have faded from the limelight primarily because golfers found them difficult to adjust to from a looks standpoint and more traditional shaped drivers in recent years have been able to find ways to reach 5000-plus MOI without geometry. Now, that’s not the 5,900 MOI limit, but most engineers agree the leap from 5,000 to 5,900 isn’t as significant as, say, the leap from 4,000 to 5,000. As such, most have trended towards more traditional shapes.I love your Hot List issue every year. In fact I used it as my testimonial for selecting my players irons last year. There however is one avenue that your Hot List leaves out every year, and it is the most important factor I now consider when purchasing any club. That factor is custumization. As a shorter golfer, only 5'3" I feel that I am overlooked when purchasing clubs, especially woods and hybrids. Next go around I would love to see the custumization options for each club and possibly a product tester that is shorter than 5'5". Matthew Cutler, Miami, FL
Johnson:
Thanks for your note and for your kind words regarding the Hot List. You make a valid point. Although we continually praise within the Hot List the companies and products that offer solid fitting options or a wide array of options, perhaps we need to look at taking this a step further and being more specific in addressing the needs of players with varying heights and/or other body types. As for a panelist of 5'5" or less, we had one panelist this year that was 5'6" although we did not specifically seek someone of that height. Perhaps we will look at that in the future as well. Again, many thanks for taking the time to write with some solid thoughts.
-- Bob Carney
Groove wars (Part 2)
He can get into semantics all he wants, but Phil Mickelson blew a great opportunity to help golf when it needs it the most. He was one of the earliest whiners when the groove changes were made. So, he showed the USGA. He went out and found a club (legal because of the Ping lawsuit technicality) but a club that is definitely illegal in the true sense of the spirit of the game. He could have helped defuse this entire situation by refusing to join a few rogue players in bending the rules. He can use whatever terms he chooses, but he still comes accross as the loser in this controversy. Scott McCarron should be the new hero of the people who love and respect the game of golf. WT Burke, Sarasota FL
Does anybody else think that Scott McCarren's comments about players who use Ping wedges with legal grooves are are a bit silly since he has been using the "long putter" for years? Is this in the "spirit" of the game that he talks about? Scott has a short memory. Richard Galloway, Illinois
He has found a loophole in the system. More Tour players are going to use Eye 2 wedges. These players are playing to make a living. The USGA and R and A should have done their homework. Phil is a class act. If the other tour players dont like it go into your garage and dust off your old eye 2 wedges. But do not disrespect the classiest guy in golf. Please consider publishing in the next issue. Jeff Lombardi, Middletown, CT</blockquote> In case you missed it, Golf World's Tim Rosaforte wrote that he thought this was an "unwelcome" distraction on tour. A number of folks are not so sure. Unlike the Tiger Woods situation, this may be a case of "all news is good news." Sports Center is talking golf, no?
--Bob Carney
Groove wars
Both Golf Digest and Golf World readers are passionately weighing in on the groove wars: Do players who use the old Ping wedges that contain the "U" grooves but have been grandfathered, cheat? Or are they just taking advantage of a rule, the way you might when you take a drop out of casual water and--gosh, that's a break--away from a tree? Scott McCarron says Phil Mickelson is "cheating" when he uses those old Ping wedges, violating the "spirit of the rule." But not all McCarrons agree.
I am a left-handed golfer that still uses Ping Eye 2 irons and wedges. My favorite pro golfer is Phil Mickelson, not only for his skills but also for his demeanor and integrity. And because my name is McCarron I enthusiastically follow Scott McCarron's success on the tour.I have to say that Scott McCarron's recent comments were way off base regarding Phil's decision to include square grooves in his bag! The Eye 2 clubs are not illegal clubs so labeling Phil a "cheater" in any way is extremely poor judgement and sportsmanship on the part of Scott McCarron, or any other pro that questions the use of the grandfathered square groove wedges. Question the PGA Tour's policy committee if you want but don't infer that a guy of Phil's caliber and character is cheating by putting the clubs in his bag. Mr. McCarron perhaps should perhaps apolgize to Phil. I am sure Phil will take the high road on the subject. Dan McCarron, Wakefield, MA
Being that he now claims he was "slandered" his road may be heading lower.
Hey Guys! How about giving up the Pings and the Belly Putter (in the spirit of the game).
Dean Toriello MD, Grand Rapids, Mi
Now you're talking, Doc. Anything that makes it harder to get clubs
into a travel bag violates the spirit of the game as far as I'm
concerned.
Maybe Scott McCarron should invest in the 20-year-old Ping wedges to revive his diminishing golf career. In fact, if it wasn't for McCarron utilizing a questionable legal club the long putter, he would not have had a PGA tour career. Gene Martineau, Roseville, CA.
That's very cold, Gene, but it's within the rules because you used a short letter. Be advised, however, that there are McCarron defenders...
While Mickelson is technically not
cheating because of the settlement agreement between Ping and the USGA,
he is in fact violating the clear intent of the USGA to eliminate
square grooves from competition. Jon Daly's lack of talent and low
moral threshold make his use of the old wedges understandable.
Mickelson's abundant talent and high moral threshold make his decision
unfathomable.
McCarron is right. Mickelson is cheating within the rules and he has
lost me as a fan. Professional golf is fast becoming an irrelevant
sport.
John R. Linnell, Tucson, AZ
Seems to me that "cheating within the rules" is impossible. Call it unsportsmanlike, perhaps, but if you're within the rules, you're within the rules--and Mickelson is. Could it be that he's trying to make a point for his and other equipment suppliers whose U grooves are not allowed? Stranger things have happened. Some of you have suggested that a "local rule" could take care of this situation. But according to Mike Johnson of Golf World, the Tour signed a settlement with Ping that precludes such a local rule.
--Bob Carney
Hot List: Just "product pushing"?
I just want to say "thank you" to Mike Stachura. His claim that people using equipment not of this decade are "pretending" to golf is the final straw that has broke this camel's back. His comment about people using outdated equipment are "pretending" to golf is offensive. He has the right to feel what he does, but so do I. He's a product-pusher, as there are no numbers to back up any claims made on the Hot List. Opinions about head shapes, paint schemes, looks/lack of alignment aids, etc. doesn't tell anyone that they should shell out their hard earned money to keep up with the arms race. Telling them that they're "pretending" to do something they love because they aren't like him and upgrading every other year (for whatever reason) is uncalled for. Where are the numbers that back up his claims? Coincidentally, a rival magazine reported a couple of months ago that the average male driving distance is 235 yards... is this new technology truly helping, or was it because there were too many "pretenders" involved with that survey? I've never had a subscription to GD, though I bought it faithfully every month for the past five years. Not any more. I'm going to take my outdated clubs and "pretend" to golf without your services. Thanks, it's been a great run, but I no longer feel the need to care about your magazine.It never works to try to talk a reader out of his decision to stop reading Golf Digest, not in the heat of break-up, certainly. But I want to say a few things about Golf Digest's position on obsolescence and especially about Stachura, who has said worse to me personally about my ancient rescue clubs, among other pieces of my equipment. First, Mike is no product pusher. On the contrary, he is one of the most skeptical reporters/editors I know. He's also one of the most knowledgeable because he works so hard at understanding what manufacturers are building and selling, and he is often the last to be convinced of their purported benefits. He is urging--it occasionally comes off as commanding--that you change equipment because he truly believes that it will help your game. Being anxious to make his point indelibly, he urges the way Madison Avenue might--without nuance. (Though he'd kill me for comparing him to Madison Avenue!)
Justin Blair, Three Rivers, MI
What Mike and Golf Digest both believe is that technology, on display this week in Orlando, is there for the taking and many golfers aren't taking, thus forfeiting benefits beginning with distance but extending to feel, trajectory control and the simple satisfaction of playing better. Take the advice or not. As Jerry Tarde pointed out in his Editor's Letter in March, I'm one of those fellows who hasn't bought in entirely either. I hold on to an old TaylorMade 4 Rescue club because with it I made a hole-in-one and won a car. I'm loyal that way. But deep in my heart I know I can do better. I hope your leave-taking is not permanent, Justin. But Mike ain't pushing. He's pleading.
--Bob Carney
Erin Hills
The USGA, as Ginella describes, got interested and Lang's dream of hosting a significant event (The U.S. Amateur) became reality. But like the Irish band in the Commitments, the center did not hold; the team of Lang and his designers: Michael Hurdzan, Dany Fry and Golf Digest's Ron Whitten, began to spin apart and eventually Lang had to sell. Their masterpiece, however, endures. I for one can't to see it hosting a big event.
Loved Matt Ginella's in depth feature on Erin Hills. Much more in depth than local coverage. Have played it a few times, opening year and late last year. I do prefer the "newer" version though I felt it was still about a year away from being in the condition that is their goal. Attached is a photo of #18, taken about 6:00 a.m., June 25, 2009, just prior to it's reopening to the public after making numerous changes. Nick Chapel, Franklin, WI I'd played Bob Lang's course before the renovation and didn't care for it at all, as it had many blind shots and little continuity. So, I thought I'd give it a secnond chance after the redo and it was even worse. It presented a jumble of design ideas in absolutely horrible condition. I was impressed that Bob took the effort to apologize to me personally by phone. Nevertheless, a 25 handicapper and a golf writer don't make for a great architectual team and there is was no reason to think that they would. Bob clearly understood the USGA's formula though. Erin Hills photographs "pretty" and has copious amounts of parking for the enormous U.S. Open crowds. It's sports marketing but it ain't golf. John D. Porter, III, Charlotte, NC
-- Bob Carney
Grooves
<strong><blockquote>It is nice to see that for PGA Tour pros it is business as usual even with the new groove rule implemented this year. Didn't the USGA know that some tour pros have been using short and mid-irons with with less biting grooves already to eliminate excess spin long before the USGA started it's crusade? Why did the USGA ignore the ball as the obvious and easy fix to their perceived problem with distance? All they had to do was mandate that the ball be just a little bit lighter than it's current weight. It would have effected everyone proportionally and been extremely simple for the manufactures to implement and easy for average golfers to conform to rather than buying a new set of irons sometime in the next five years. The USGA seems to run itself much like a government bureaucracy. Undertaking the most elaborate solution when a simple one would work so much better.
Carlo Scialla
Mendham NJ </blockquote></strong>
Your quest is noble, Carlo. And, can you say "Quixotic?"
<div style="text-align: right;">--Bob Carney</div>
More (sympathetic) letters on Tiger
Amid reports that Tiger Woods has entered a Mississippi rehab center, Jaime Diaz's report on Tiger in the February issue continues to draw praise for its insightfulness. At the same time your comments about the scandal continue to express empathy for Woods. The latest:
In 45 years of reading golf articles, this is the finest and most objective. Given Jaime's closeness to Tiger, he does an amazing job of telling both sides of the story, examining the yin and yang, and helping us to better understand this curious beast named Tiger Woods. Bravo, Jaime! Bob Hunnicutt
Like most of the people in the civilized world, I have read, heard and been inundated with opinions about what Tiger Woods should do now in his hour of embarrassment. Let me add my two cents. Like all athletes and other entertainers, Tiger owes us nothing in the way of explanation. There is no reason for him to confess further in any public forum to any “transgressions” that may have taken place. His only obligation is to his family. If his marriage remains intact or is torn apart on the rocks of infidelity, that is between him and his wife. We should hold him accountable only for his performance on the golf course. If he returns to competition stronger than ever, that should be considered a major personal accomplishment. If this is the beginning of a downward slide, no one would be surprised. As to his marketability, that is between him and his corporate partners and has to do only with the economic prediction, inexact as that may be, of the pros and cons of keeping Tiger as a corporate face for advertising. Tiger owes us nothing in the way of an explanation or apology, nor do we owe him a hero’s place on a pedestal. After all, he’s only human. James B. D. Mark, Stanford, CA
Well said, James, but I'd expect both insight and empathy from a Stanford man....
Tiger tide turning? 3
Thank you, Jaime Diaz, for your article on Tiger Woods entitled "What Happened?" It is very well written. Thought provoking and insightful. I don't condone his actions but I feel the man deserved a lot more respect than he got with all the jokes and ugly pictures. No one is perfect--he made a bad mistake but he did not deserve all the media and public ugliness. How does it go? "Ye without sin may cast the first stone." I just don't understand why the public thought it funny to destroy him that way. That's my side of the story. Sarah Brewster, Mariposa, CA
Jaime Diaz' analysis of Tiger Woods' mortification is insightful, even moving. Doesn't the public's rush to righteous anger and wicked glee also deserve a look? It seems as if imperfect knowledge, fantasy, gossip and hype nurture a sense of pseudo-intimacy with celebrities, an illusory familiarity whose flip side is contempt. Public personalities know this. Yet we want them grateful to us. When our illusion of someone like Mr. Woods is rudely interrupted, when our champions do something out of public character, we feel betrayed. But what do we know of them, really? All we see is their performance, the honed point of the pin. Superb performance is surpassing not because it comes from ubermensch but from otherwise frail, aging, conflicted humans, some charming, some appalling, most banal. It's easy to pronounce on Tiger Woods' transgressions. That way, he can make us feel good about ourselves even when he commits tragedy. Is our claim on him and others like him exploitive? Oh, no-- after all, we pay them, which makes it okay. Still, we don't own them. It's a game. Tiger may indeed need new boundaries. Another lesson: so do the rest of us. Jono Polansky, Fairfax, CAThe polls must be showing a similar shift in the public's views on Tiger, because the President chose this week to express his support. Be nice to think he was just doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but....
Tiger tide turning? 2
To continue with yesterday's theme, we're seeing a kindler, gentler letter writer in the past couple of weeks, at least in regards to the Tiger Woods affair. There remain those of you who will not forgive--especially female readers--but even the anti-Tiger mail has taken on a slightly more understanding tone. And some of you remain solidly in Tiger's camp--this first letter writer, for example.
Leave the guy alone. Don't all of you people have things to do in your lives. You are all a bunch of sorry losers. The bunch of you. Jesus said to the people that want to stone the harlot, "if none of you have sinned let you be the first one to stone her" and noone did. He also said before you point th finger in a persons eye check the log in your eye first. This is madness on an unprecedented scale. Get a life! How can so many of your columns be devoted to the negative side of Woods' story. The guy who made me discover Golf Digest and millions of others alot of whom have taken out subscriptions and possibly bought equipment on your web site. Have you no shame for the guy that pitched your GD so well. Shame on you. I can assure you I do not even anymore read articles on your site. I only go there to confirm the extent of the trash you write and keep about TW on your site. I will never recommend to any of my partners, associates or playing partners around the world to have anything to do with your company. We are 100% behind Tiger. He has apologized. What more do you want him to do? Please take those sorry columns down. Frankly, I am disgusted. Nigel Sharpe, Lusaka, Zambia
I wanted you to know that I for one appreciate the limited coverage of Tiger Woods in your latest issue, including the exclusion of "Tiger's Lesson Tee" and "Ask Tiger" articles. I realize that there is a need to protect your own interest, but that you are also protecting Tiger during a time when his face needs to be seen as scarcely as possible. The recent uproar from the "major media" companies (aka those who never cared about TW when he was winning majors and breaking records) makes me ill. I just wanted to say 'thank you' for not seeing dollar signs during this debacle, and I hope that you are waiting, with open arms, to welcome Tiger when he returns. Mike McCullough, Maryville, TN
Tiger Woods is a spoiled, arrogant man. I have seen him brush handicapped children aside as they try to get an autograph. Please don't ask me to feel sorry for him. He wanted all the trappings of fame and fortune but none of the responsibilities. He may come back and surpass Jack's 18 majors. Jack Nicklaus is a man to be admired as a brilliant player, husband and father. Tiger Woods will never be Jack Nicklaus. Lynn HuntSome members of the media are suggesting today that Mark McGwire's delayed confession to steroid transgressions yesterday is a "model" for how Tiger ought to come back: an admission of wrongdoing in sympathetic venues, with limited questions, and with a finite number of hours devoted to it. Perhaps. But there is, in Tiger's case, the question of what happens to his marriage. We'll see....








