"Golfers love punishment. That's where I come in."
--Pete Dye 

Your May issue of Golf Digest will land shortly, and right smack in the middle of it is our 100 Greatest and 100 Greatest Public rankings. Early copies to the courses themselves and to members of the media have set off the usual flurry of comment and ruffled feathers. Lively discussions are taking place on both Shackelford and golfclubatlas. Interesting comments on Shackelford about Riviera’s drop and whether its renovation contributed to that fact. On golfclubatlas, "Bob" had this to say about renovations: "What is it with restorations/redoes these days that all the bunker borders look so....I don't know, so....tumescent?"

Tumescent. I like that. After her face lift, Gladys' cheeks were tumescent. He's right. Lot of golf courses look like that after facelifts, too. Is it too much to suggest that some of the opinions about our list border on tumescent as well? I’m always amazed at the cynicism in these discussions about how our (or anybody’s) rankings are for sale, as if there were really ways one could advertise or buy their way on our list.

Three things to say about that: First, the process is transparent and rigorous. It’s done by ranking the courses in categories such as Resistance to Scoring, Design Variety, etc. Our 800-some panelists assign numbers in each category to thousands of courses. The numbers rule. The best numbers get a course on the list. Two, it takes a specific number of evaluations to qualify. Therefore, a course can miss because its numbers aren’t high enough or because not enough panelists (40 ballots are required) see that golf course. In time, they will. Finally, while I think ours is the strongest and most influential list out there, I don’t think it’s perfect. Would I place Yale higher on the Connecticut Best in State ranking than our panelists do? You bet I would. But that’s not how we do this thing. We try to make our panel the most informed group we can (holding conferences to educate them, for example), and then we let them make their ratings. In the end, the strength of the list is that we have low-handicap, well-traveled golfers giving us their varied opinions.  It’s not Ron Whitten, our Architecture Editor’s list. It’s not Jerry Tarde’s list. It’s not our advertisers’ list. It is the 100 Greatest, created by our panelists. And they do a pretty fair job.
-- Bob Carney

"When I have a camera in my hand, I know no fear."
-- Alfred Eisenstaedt

Now how the heck does this happen? When you get your May issue, you’ll swear that the photo on the cover is identical to the one on the cover of this week’s Sports Illustrated. You’ll bet, I’ll bet, that it was done at the same place, by the same photographer, at the same point in Tiger Woods’ swing. And you would get two of three wrong.

The photo was indeed taken in the same place, on tee box of the 13th hole of the North course of Torrey Pines on Tuesday of the Buick Invitational. However, it was taken by two different photographers at two slightly different points in the swing. J.D. Cuban took ours; Robert Beck took theirs. The photos are slightly different. But the morning light, illuminating Tiger at the top of his backswing against the sky and ocean, is perfect in both cases.

J.D. says it used to be that a photographer, knowing that Tiger practiced early, could get out and get dramatic, exclusive shots. No more. “The secret’s out,” says J.D. Everybody knows Tiger practices early. Now the number of photographers following him almost equals the gallery!” In this case there were five or six shooters following Tiger from the first tee, at about 7 a.m. Needless to say, neither publication expected the other to produce such a strikingly similar cover. What you gonna’ do? Nice story by John Garrity in SI. Nice instruction by Tiger in Golf Digest. The readers win.
-- Bob Carney

The swing is never learned. It's remembered.
--Bagger Vance

Before we head off to Augusta, literally or via the powers of CBS,  Masters.org and our own web site, one last look at the Swing Chi story by David Leadbetter in our March issue. We got a letter from a real T’ai Chi instructor, Jayne Storey, who teaches in Europe and who has a program for golfers.

Her suggestions: "Try the simplest of all standing postures, called Wu Chi (meaning emptiness) in order to train alignment, grounding, relaxation and to cultivate "here and now" thinking—a vital component of the mental game…."

I’ve seen  players in the group in front of me try this on the golf course….prior to their shots…

Step two: "Taking the idea of stillness into your golf swing, I also suggest that you freeze-frame any part of your swing that you find particularly challenging, holding the position for at least 30 seconds while focusing on being grounded, relaxed and correctly aligned, before moving—at normal tempo—through to completion".

Jayne also suggests super-slow motion swings, taking a minute to complete a swing…"When you master one minute, try two minutes!" I’m typing more slowly already….
--Bob Carney

I've never seen Augusta so beautiful. If heaven is this pretty, I'd go there tomorrow.
-- Gene Sarazen

Clayton Lloyd-Jones has a problem with our Masters section in the April issue. "Each year I look forward to the April issue of Golf Digest because it reminds me of what golf should be all about. Beauty, tranquility, a glorious golf course dressed up in its Sunday best. Instead, in the Masters Preview section, I was slapped in the face with a nerve-jangling blast of uncoordinated colours and fonts that seemed to be an ad for a teenager’s product of unknown description created by a grade 6 student! What a shock! It struck me as unsavory as Sergio spitting into the cup at the World Golf Championships or some drunken lout yelling, “Get in the hole !” on a par-4 tee shot....Where was the shot of Hogan’s bridge or Magnolia Lane on the cover page? Please tell me you are not heading down the road of unkempt players with their shirts hanging out, baggy pants and backward turned hats. It would be a shame to lose the one constant in all of golf: the wonder of Augusta National."

Clayton, I finished your letter and thought: I'll bet this was one of the worst winters in the history of British Columbia. Clayton Lloyd-Jones is cranky.  Seriously, I’m a curmudgeon myself and love rooting through the Golf Digest and Golf World archives for pictures of Nelson, Snead and Hogan. But take a look at April's Masters section! Get beyond that “nerve-jangling” opening page and look at what you have:

--Gorgeous, first-ever, overheads of the course, showing all the changes (and even your beloved Hogan's bridge, as you can see here);
--A terrific story on Carl Jackson, the last of the great Augusta caddies, by Ron Whitten;       
--Nick Seitz's piece on starter Phil Harison;
--Dave Kindred’s incredible profile of Billy Payne;
--Portraits of Augusta by Joe McNally (famous for among other things his shots from Ground Zero;       
--Pete McDaniel's oral history of Tiger’s win in ’97 with details from Tiger, friends and family that have never been published....

Unsavory? Unkempt? Uncoordinated? Mr. Lloyd-Jones, you’ve missed the trees for the forest green. I’ve been here 23 years and this is the best-written, -reported, -photographed and -presented Masters sections ever. And I can say that because I had absolutely nothing to do with it. But if it's more Hogan you want, check out Bill Fields' wonderful story on Hogan’s last Masters, in this week's Golf World, our sister publication . Then let me know what you think....
-- Bob Carney
(Photo of Phil Harison, Masters starter, by Dom Furore)

It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.
-- P. G. Wodehouse, The Man Upstairs (1914)

It’s never a good policy to criticize your customers, but that’s why I’m not in sales.  So this will be in defense of the guys who bring you golf, via keyboard and mike, prompted by a few of those letters that are, depending on your interpretation, grudging compliments or slaps upside the head with a gap wedge.

Here’s Jim Kun of Akron, writing in response to Dan Jenkins’ “The First Masters I Covered” in April. “Too bad you weren’t at the 1946 Masters, your article could have read that Herman Keiser 3-putted 18 to win the Masters instead of Hogan 3-putting to lose. (Herman missed the same 30-inch putt). Oh well, the press never cared for Herman anyway. I could tell you Herman’s comments about it, but I’ll save you from reading it much less writing about it or Herman….”

Whoa, Jim. I understand why you might feel Herman has been slighted here, especially if you knew him, and it’s true that Ben Hogan finished after Keiser, and had he two-putted, would have tied Keiser and (only) forced a playoff.  But Hogan is Hogan and Keiser is Keiser. Hogan won the Masters twice. In 25 starts, he finished in the top-25 21 times, the top-10 17 times, the top-5 nine times. Keiser, who  played 26 times, finished all 72 holes nine times, finished in the top-25 six times, won once, finished in the top-5 once. So I think Dan’s interpretation is right. Hogan 3-putted to lose. (Honestly, who would you bet on in that playoff?)

More to the point, the way we think of Hogan, the way we see the Masters, is in a million ways due to Dan’s interpretation, his telling of these stories. And I’d say, for the most part, it’s been pretty unerring over the decades. Perfect, no, but about as close as anybody writing today ever got. And I think you know that. You did sign off with, “Keep up the good work,” after all. It’s one of the reasons why the Masters will honor Jenkins and 13 other writers who have covered at least 40 Masters, including our Nick Seitz and Dave Kindred,  during Masters Week. But Golf Digest and Golf World have also profiled Keiser over the years. Might be worth another look….Or, go back to the original coverage of that 1946 Masters at Augustachronicle.com. The fee for the Chronicle's archive section is well worth it. You'll love digging through those old stories.

We got a similar letter from Mark Dall of Linthicum Heights, Maryland, on Jaime Diaz’ Golf on TV story. But he took our brethren in the booth to task. “The success of Golf on TV is simple: ‘These guys are good.’ I find it ironic that the golf-tournament announcers think so highly of themselves…The interviews with Tiger after a round is, well, ‘yawn.’ Compare that to watching Tiger’s precisely placed chip shot, the ball rolling gracefully to the hole, stopping at the lip, and majestically drop. ‘Double fist-pump’ Awesome!”

Mark, who can argue with that comparison? But those folks earn their money when Tiger’s off his game, or not there, and the two contenders, who you’ve never heard of, are seeing who can make the most bogeys on their way to hugging their wives and kids on a course you don't recognize.  That’s when the story-telling begins, and most of the time they do it pretty well. Speaking of storytelling, check out Jim Nantz’s revisiting of the 1960 Masters, to air just before this year’s tournament. Outstanding, as chronicled by Bill Fields in this coming week’s Golf World.

--Bob Carney

"In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world."
--Franz Kafka

We got a fascinating letter from reader David Selman on Mike Stachura's story about golf equipment manufacturing in China. Selman, whose  Kimberlite company supplies raw materials to the Taiwanese, says he fears that increasing pressure on price will erode quality. "I have been supplying the Taiwanese foundries with American steel and other products for 21 years.  In that time I have seen all of them set up factories in China and Vietnam.   That has led to a relentless search on their part for cheaper raw materials.  This has impacted negatively on my business as well other U.S. suppliers and ultimately on the quality of the raw materials used to make clubs...."

But, says Selman, "You might find it interesting that a lot of U.S.-made products are used to make Chinese golf clubs.    1)       Electralloy 17-4, 450, and AM-355 AOD ingot for casting 2)       AK Steel and Carpenter Technology stainless steel sheet for crowns and face inserts 3)       Engineered Ceramics crucibles for melting the metal 4)       Nalco Chemical Company Colloidal Silica for making a quick dry ceramic shell 5)       VOD 17-4, 15-5, and 450 bars 6)       High-quality stainless steel U.S. aerospace scrap metal. I have no idea how much longer I will be able to sell these products to the Taiwanese in China as they are relentlessly pressured to lower costs by their U.S. customers."

I don't understand half of what's on that list, but I do know Mr. Selman has made his point: There's always more to the story, even if that story is written in Chinese.

--Bob Carney

“If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.”
--P.G. Wodehouse

The statute of limitations is almost up on Dan Jenkins’ January column, “Sand shots for the ages,” but this question is interesting, so what the hay, let’s give Steve Juskewycz, chairman of the Golf Links to the Past shop at Pebble, the floor: "In reference to the 1930 British Open, you stated, 'So out came the sand wedge for the one and only time in Jones' brilliant career.'  Frankly, the reason that we are so interested in this statement is that we recently acquired the original glass negative of that shot featured in the article.    In Mark Frost's book, 'The Grand Slam,' he states, 'He'd used it only twice in England' (before this shot on 16 at Hoylake).  Of course, this could mean he used it in England, but not in the Amateur at St. Andrews, which was held before the Open Championship. How did you conclude that this was the only time Jones had used a sand wedge in his career?   We certainly have no reason to dispute your statement, but we would like to get as much information about one of the more storied shots in golf history."

We asked Dan for his source and he said it was Francis Trimble of Houston, perhaps the world's leading golf researcher, who got it from Sid Mathew of Atlanta, the leading Bobby Jones historian. It was Trimble who supplied Golf Digest with the document of the sand wedge patent. Okay, so it’s Mark Frost on one side and Trimble, Mathew and Jenkins on the other. No disrespect to Frost, I’m leaning Jenkins and company.

While we’re still in the bunker, Donald Ely of Hendersonville, Tenn., wants us to remove the stones. In response to our April Pop Quiz, he says, “My understanding was that due to the hazard of hitting a stone they should be removed before playing the shot.” As rules folks know, this question has been debated by the R&A, which allows stone removal, and the USGA, which does not, for years, to the point where many of the stones in question have become  much smaller.

Ely quotes the USGA on the subject, which points to Rule 13-4 (no relief for loose impediments, which is what a stone is), but waffles on: However, stones in bunkers may represent a danger to players . . . and they may interfere with the proper playing of the game. When permission to lift a stone in a bunker is warranted, the following Local Rule is recommended: “Stones in bunkers are movable obstructions (Rule 24-1 applies).”  I’m sorry, and I know I’m being insensitive here, but the danger of stones in bunkers should be weighed against the danger of dying of old age while waiting for a fellow competitor to play out of a bunker, and stones, therefore, ought to be left the hell alone. Okay, unless they are huge.  So you know, I also favor a maximum of one marking of your ball per green, no discussion of bounce during a round, and a maximum of six practice swings. You’re away. (Add your comments below, or weigh in further on the USGA's rules blog.)

-- Bob Carney

"There's a deception to every rule."
--Anonymous

John Garrison of Shadow Glen Golf Club in Olathe, Kan., writes to dispute our article on "Ten Commandments to Avoid Rules Disputes" in the April issue (p 82): "First, Commandment number 4 states that Drops 'in most cases' may not end up closer to the hole, a commandment can't have a 'in most cases' in it.  Imagine this commandment 'in most cases' thou shall not covet they neighbor's wife.   Doesn't work.  Lastly, I don't think Commandment 9 is accurate.  If you are in a bunker, which is a hazard under the rules and play the wrong ball you have broken the rules.  The rules of golf allow for moving sand for identification purposes, and lifting the ball (but not cleaning it) then recreating the lie in order to idenitfy that it is in fact your ball."

John, I'm not going to argue with your first point—"in most cases"—not with my wife looking over my shoulder. However, you're off base on the second. Rule 15-3 says: There is no penalty if a player makes a stroke at a wrong ball in a hazard. Yes, in a hazard you may, according to Rule 12-1, remove as much sand as you need to see your ball. (Though you may not lift it). But you aren't penalized if you make a mistake and hit the wrong ball.

John Mazzitelli of Sicklerville, NJ, also has a beef, with our Commandment No. 3, on provisionals. "Are you saying I have to declare that I want to play the provisional and declare the original ball lost before I leave the spot of the original shot?  If so, this is not true. I think you are confused with Rule 27-2(a) where it says, 'and he must play it before he... goes forward to search for the original ball.'  This just says that if you say you are going to play a provisional, you have to hit that provisional ball before going to look for your possibly lost ball - but by no means are you declaring that your original ball is lost and will be taking a penalty!  That defeats the purpose of hitting a provisional!"

Right you are, sir.  Yes, you must not walk away from your first shot before declaring a provisional, but you are not committed to the provisional until you reach the point where you think your original ball may have been lost. If you continue to play the provisional after that, it's your ball in play. Check out the rules and decisions on the rules at www.usga.org.

--Bob Carney

"Some men see things as they are and ask 'why'? I dream things that never were and ask, 'why not?'"
-- George Bernard Shaw

We caught a little grief, and rightly so I think, for The Golf Guru's comments about playing colored golf balls in the April issue (page 78):

"Is it ever okay for a man to use a colored golf ball?" asked Hugh Hencken of Orlando.

"Sure, when you play miniature golf with your kids," said the Guru.

Which did not sit well with several readers, including Marshall Taylor of Mebane, N.C.: "I am approaching 77 years of age and am enduring the trials, tribulations, aches and pains of old age. Yet I am still trying to enjoy the game of golf. My eyesight is failing, I can no longer follow the flight of a Pro V-1 into the gray winter sky or locate it on the light tan color of the dormant grass in the fairway. Heaven forbid trying to spot that little white sphere in the white sand of a bunker. My solution: hunt down a ball that I can see! After visiting several stores, I was able to locate and purchase a box of 15 optic yellow Top Flite XL balls. Problem solved!! Then I read in the April Golf Digest Grillroom column that the answer given to when 'can a man use a colored golf ball' is 'when you play miniature golf with your kids.' Wow! Poor me!

"If that's not bad enough, in the Golf World magazine of March 16th, the Equipment article states '...because golf balls are the most indecipherable piece of equipment in golf. They're round, dimpled and white (unless you're Paula Creamer, who on occasion, goes pink.)' I ask you:   Of what value, at any price, is a round, highly researched, heavily marketed, white ball if I can not hit it, follow it, find it and hit it again??"

Right on, Marshall. If you find your golf ball  faster because it's optic yellow, more power to you, slow play being the cancer that's eating our game. You should know you have an ally in Lou Shapiro of Rumson, N.J.,  who wrote this comment about his dad's preference for yellow balls: " I feel like this is a letter I have to write, since I know my dad would have. My father was killed in an auto accident in October of last year on his way to visiting me in N.J. from Florida.  He loved the game, was colorblind, and used a yellow ball.  For him the yellow ball against the green of the course offered the best contrast allowing him to follow his shot and never slow down play."

Guys, I have to agree with you.  Who cares what color the ball is? "What'd you make?" is the only question that matters on the golf course, or maybe "How come it took you so long?" I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

--Bob Carney

If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner.
-- Tallulah Bankhead

Interesting that the Nike Sumo2 problem—some of the drivers benefited from an overly lively trampoline effect—was a manufacturing issue, according to Nike.  Worth a re-read of Mike Stachura's piece on the manufacturing process in China, where most clubheads are made now. 

For more details on the current recall, check in at Bomb & Gouge and in this week's Golf World magazine, where Mike Johnson reports on the problem, the recall and the fallout. My own feeling is Nike won't lose much in the process. In fact, I suspect they'll get a reputation for pushing the envelope for the consumer, not necesarily a bad thing in the world of marketing.

I'm curious about how many owners of the Sumo2 will actually take it back for a trade.  If your Ford Taurus got a recall notice saying that it lacked a governor and tended to go too fast, would you take it back? And how many clubs will check bags prior to, say, the member-guest? What do you think?

While we're on the subject of manufacturing error, we got an interesting letter from Greg Bruner of Indianapolis last week talking about a Nike Sasquatch he bought on Ebay. Turns out it wasn't really a Nike Sasquatch at all: "Buyer Beware! I was the purchaser of what was advertised as a Nike Sasquatch+ driver in June 2006 from a seller's store on Ebay. Decals, markings, head, and shaft were all virtually identical to the original manufacturer. In February 2007, I was hitting balls at an indoor simulator when 'the problem' occurred. The welds along the entire top of the clubhead broke except for maybe one inch at the toe. Needless to say, the clubhead was totally destroyed. I phoned Nike support and they were most helpful regarding where to send the club. After Nike received the club, they informed me that it was a counterfeit. I sent an email to the Ebay seller, but no response. At the end of the day, I'm out a lot of money and a golf club. As the Nike representative advised in their email, do not buy Nike golf clubs from Ebay."

Any of you out there have a similar experience? Keep your heads on.

--Bob Carney