These greens are so fast I have to hold my putter over the ball and hit it with the shadow. Sam Snead

After the discussion of slow play here a few days ago—it is a topic that frequently ignites our readers—I came across this data from a poll we did of superintendents a few years back. "What factors contribute to slow play?" we asked the supers. Their responses:

Increased course traffic 33%
High rough, fast greens 26%
Decline in etiquette 23%
Reduction of monitoring
by course personnel 11%
Cell phone usage 3%
Increased tree growth 2%

And, we asked further, what course grooming techniques had they used to successfully reduce slow play? (The supers were to choose one):

Shortening of rough 46%
Widening of fairways 25%
Slowing of greens 14%
Faster/firmer fairways 7%
Shorter tees 5%

Then, about a year ago, we did a survey of average golfers on what they wanted most in a golf course. Essentially, the response was: Give us a course that is not difficult but well manicured.

Developers, with our ratings and rankings encouraging them, I'm afraid, have been driven to build what they call "country clubs for a day". Judging by these studies, what we really need are munies for a week, well-conditioned courses that you can afford to play more than once a week—afford in terms of money, ego, and, yes, time.

—Bob Carney

"Always keep in mind that if God didn't want a man to have mulligans, golf balls wouldn't come three to a sleeve." Dan Jenkins

For a mulligan on our course rankings in the May issue check out John Huggan's re-ordering of our international lists in the Scotsman today. John, Golf Digest's European Editor, nonetheless finds some of our numbers inexplicable.

Top of this year's rankings is the links of Royal County Down in Northern Ireland, which has bumped the Old Course at St Andrews down to second. Third is Royal Dornoch, with Royal Portrush fourth. Muirfield is a surprisingly lowly fifth, with the top ten rounded out by Royal Melbourne's composite course, Ballybunion, Turnberry, Carnoustie and New Zealand's Cape Kidnappers.

Having played nine of the magazine's top ten (not Ballybunion), I am somewhat qualified to comment on the real order, which should read: 1) Muirfield; 2) St Andrews; 3) Royal Melbourne; 4) Royal Dornoch; 5) Carnoustie; 6) Royal Portrush; 7) Royal County Down; 8) Morfontaine; 9) Sunningdale; 10) Portmarnock.

What I find inexplicable is that Huggan has not played Ballybunion. It's in the Top 5— anywhere.

—Bob Carney

"Golf." Doug Sanders, asked what he majored in at college.

Hank Haney argued in the March issue that the best route to the tour was, gulp, not college.

For a younger player with the ability and burning desire to be one of the best players in the world, my advice would be to skip college. And as more of our elite juniors make that decision, the better chance America will have to regain dominance in golf.

His provocative piece drew tons of response, a lot of it negative. Among the challengers was 8-time PGA Tour winner Bob Tway, who played his college golf at Oklahoma and whose letter appears in the May issue.

The number of pros making it to the pros is very small; the liklihood of becoming the next Tiger Woods...I'd recommend playing the lottery instead.

...nothing is for sure. The closest thing to a guarantee in life is this: Whatever your passion, attend college if you possibly can and you will broaden your horizons. Golf is the sport of a lifetime, but the college experience lasts a lifetime.

Tway's letter produced this one from Gordon Martel, a history professor from the University of Northern British Columbia.

I’ve always admired Bob Tway’s demeanour and composure on the golf course, as well as the clarity and thoughtfulness with which he expresses himself when interviewed. His response to Hank Haney’s suggestion that aspiring golfers should skip college has further increased my admiration. How sad that anyone in a position to influence the future decisions of thousands of young people would promote the pursuit of the golf swing over an education, but how encouraging to have a touring professional respond so effectively and persuasively to this unfortunate advice. Well done, Bob

The upcoming NFL draft, peppered with underclassmen, serves as a reminder that this debate is hardly over. Don't be surprised if more and more high school golfers take Haney's advice and don't even attend college for two or three years.

—Bob Carney

"Fifty percent of the fairways we play on today are better than ninety percent of the greens we played on thirty years ago." Jim Ferree, in the Gigantic Book of Golf Quotations

Our course rankings in the May issue continue to stir the pot. We've received a bunch of letters about the Best in State lists, the latest from a reader in North Carolina decrying the fact that Tanglewood Park, site of the 1974 PGA Championship did not make the Best-in-State list. (It simply did not have the numbers).

Now, from across the Atlantic, comes a provocative column by the London Daily Mail's Derek Lawrenson on the impact of lists such as ours. We like to think our lists have caused golf courses to make themselves better over the years, raised the standards, if you will, and that's good for the average golfer. Derek takes a shot (not posted) at that reasoning.

GOLF DIGEST'S annual survey of the 100 best courses in America caused its usual fuss, including the arguably slanderous tantrum from Donald Trump that the only reason his venue wasn't there was because he hadn't spent big bucks advertising in the magazine.

Haven't we had enough of seeing greens that had remained flat for decades suddenly altered to resemble an elephant's burial ground?

A bit of a straw man there. Is that really what most renovations are about, adding undulations to greens? We can buy an argument against unnecessary bunkering, bunkers and mounding that don't fit the design, ridiculous lengthening, but elephantine greens? Not a big problem here. But Lawrenson is just warming up:

The millions spent have worked to the extent that they have a place in that all-important top 100. But for a seven-handicapper like me, in terms of simple enjoyment of playing the game, there was no comparison, and that's without taking into consideration value for money.

Give me the course that ain't moving every time.

Not so sure. Our point is, as the poet said, "He not busy being born is busy dying." In the end, it's how the renovation is done. At a nearby Tillinghast layout that has hosted four USGA championships, and is not on the 100 Greatest list, a recent re-do: leveled and added tees, removed trees that didn't belong (firs, high-rooted hard woods, etc.) and re-configured a few bunkers. I think the course is stronger, healthier and tougher because of the refurbishment. Could the club have done without it? No doubt. But the renovation was done without changing the character of the course and most members are pleased with it.

The fact is, a lot of average golfers are pleased they play at courses that strive to make our lists (100 Greatest, 100 Greatest Public, Best-in-State and our reader ratings, Places to Play) because those courses at the very least maintain and condition their courses well.

Love to hear what you think.....of the 100 Greatest and Mr. Lawrenson's view of it.

—Bob Carney

Properly fitted clubs are the only part of improved golf that anyone can buy. Tommy Armour

The Hot List landed in January (Golf Digest February Issue), but in North Carolina, the subject of equipment buying remains warm. Matthew Buntyn, a longtime subscriber, questions whether we're too narrow in our approach with our list.

I am not saying that [your tests] aren't accurate or that they are poorly conducted, but I do feel that they are incomplete. Why do you only review and test clubs made by name brand manufacturers? There are several component brands out there that I feel will easily stack up to those pricier models in the stores.

Matthew says bought a set of irons with heads designed Ralph Maltby and they outperform the brand-name irons he used to play. What's more, he likes the process of building clubs himself.

There are several of us out there that enjoy building and/or tinkering with our equipment, and it's hard to justify adjusting your club's specs after you've spent $600.00 or more for a set of irons, when you could have built them to suit yourself for half the price. I ask that you consider this in your next club test.

Mike Johnson, who does the Equipment Page for Golf World and serves as one of the Hot List judges, explains why we do it the way we do.

The list is certainly not limited to big brands. I would point to the selection of the Miura iron in the last list as an example. In other years we have honored clubs from companies such as KZG, T.P. Mills, Gauge Design and others that have very little market share or impact in the market place. And the Bobby Jones woods virtually no one knew about until we put them on the Hot List.

Component clubs are fine, but it is a very small percentage of the universe that “wants to get their hands dirty” and build their own set. The readers of Golf Digest, for the most part, are looking to the magazine for guidance in sifting through the mass of clubs available at retail golf shops. Hence, our focus on those clubs. Also, to include components as a category would be very difficult. There are far more components than manufacturers. And then how do we decided what shafts to use? What grips to use? It would not be fair to make comparisons without that information.

But, says Mike, components can provide the ultimate fit, and that's something he and the other members of Hot List panel fully endorse.

To be truthful, I think golfers are overpaid. It's unreal, and I have trouble dealing with the guilt sometime. —Colin Montgomerie

Not sure what moved reader Bob Baima to bring this to our attention today. Perhaps the recent reference here to Zach Johnson out-earning Bob Goalby at the Masters, $1.6 million to $116,000. But you can tell Bob (the reader) has been steamed about it for a while.

Hi. Wanted to write quick note to get something off my chest. I have subscribed to Golf Digest for several years. Periodically, I see Golf Digest compare a current player's earnings to a player of a former era. The message is always the same: "Gee, whiz, look how much today's players earn!"

You can find a nifty Inflation Calculator, provided by your tax dollars and the U.S. Department of Labor, at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. I think your staff would find it a great tool if they want to do any future true comparisons of winnings.

For the record, I, for one, stayed awake in Econ class at Michigan, but only with the aid of No-Doz. So I took Bob's suggestion and visited the DOL site. Here's what I learned about Johnson and Goalby: In 1968 Goalby earned today's equivalent of $684, 506. That's still a far cry from $1.6 million—about 42 per cent of it actually—but Mr. Baima has made his point and we stand corrected. Indeed, we should make monetary comparisons exactly as he suggests. Makes for a better story.

We've bookmarked the site, Bob. Thanks for your letter.

—Bob Carney

"The ardent golfer would play Mt. Everest if somebody put a flagstick on top." Pete Dye

You’ve had time to absorb the 100 Greatest, the 100 Greatest Public and our Best-in-State lists. And time to react.

Great question from reader Bill Thomas about our Best-in-State list there:

Always look forward to your Top 100 golf courses and to see what ones I've played or should try to play. One that I'm going to play this summer is the River Course at Kingsmill in VA. I noted they are rated number 4 in their state but do not show up in the top 100 list for public courses. Yet the number 11 course in Virginia, Tradition GC, is 64th on your public list. At first I thought since you put Kingsmill in resorts they can't be listed elsewhere. However, other courses like The Homestead, Bandon Dunes and others show up in multiple categories. It would seem to me that the River course should be before Tradition GC. Is there an explanation?

Indeed, there is. It has to do with the number of evaluations by our panel of 800-plus low-handicap golfers we require for various lists. For a course to be considered for America’s100 Greatest Courses, it must have 40 evaluations; for the 100 Greatest Public, 24. Those are national lists. For inclusion on a Best-in-State list we require 10 evaluations. Thus, a course may rank high on the Best-in-State list, but not have sufficient ballots to qualify it for the 100 Greatest Public or the 100 Greatest.

Why the difference in the first place, you ask? Practically, we’ve not been able to get panelists in larger numbers to all of the courses that qualify. Would we like to use the 40-minimum for every list? Certainly. In fact, we’d like to use 50. We think the more panelists who see and evaluate a course, the stronger that evaluation is. However, it’s just not been possible. Nevertheless, in the last evaluation period, the two years prior to assembling the May 2007 list, we processed 15,410 evaluations. We keep an evaluation of any given course in the system for ten years, or five evaluation periods.

Our Rankings Editor Topsy Siderowf, who manages the process of getting the panelists to all eligible courses, says that's exactly what happened in this case: Kingsmill (River) had only 22 ballots, insufficient to qualify for either of the national lists.

It’s not a perfect system. But we think it’s a system that produces the most trustworthy list out there.

--Bob Carney

I'm more proud of my reputation than the fact that I won a lot of tournaments. Byron Nelson

Last week, Kyle Lograsso, the little boy fighting ocular cancer who was the subject of Dave Kindred's moving profile in May, got a very nice note from his hero Tiger Woods. Over the weekend comes another message that he'll appreciate, also from a major champion, via author Kindred:

Dave,
 
I just read your article (Courage of a Tiger) on 4-year-old Kyle Lograsso.  What an inspiration he is to all of us.  I have a 3-year-old son who's also playing golf.  Maybe one day they can get together for a round. 

Please pass along my well wishes to Kyle and his family. 
 
Shaun Micheel, 2003 PGA Champion

Shaun's son, Dade Palmer, was born just a few months after Micheel won at Oak Hill. I emailed Shaun to ask if it would be okay if we used his note on this blog. Sure, he said. "I really enjoyed the article. I just wish that there were more stories like that out there in the media these days."

And finally comes this word from the Lograsso's that Kyle got a very special voicemail message over the weekend. Tiger Woods called him, wished him good luck and told him to keep practicing.

You think that might be a message Kyle saves for a while?

—Bob Carney

"By the time you get to your ball, if you don't know what to do with it, try another sport." Julius Boros, quoted in The Future of Golf, by Geoff Shackelford

It's the beginning of the season up here in Connecticut and opening day conversations at our club, down the street from where Julius Boros learned the game, had already turned to pace of play on Saturday. Thanks to a golf chairman who was willing to be unpopular for a while, we benefit from a good, almost brisk, pace most days. It's on your minds, too. A letter to the editor by reader in which he rued the loss of putting time when forced to play in four hours, brought this response from Arthur Willis of Houston:

Don Hill laments not being able to put out because he is being pushed to play a four hour round of golf. Putting is not what lengthens a round of golf. It is 3 players standing around watching the fourth player hit his shot. If each player would play ready golf, they would have no problem playing a 3:45-4:00 hr round, We do it on a regular basis.

Right on, Arthur. Playing "gallery" when you should be playing golf is a huge problem. Here are five other time-devouring habits that drive me batty:

1. Walking from cart to ball without a club or clubs in hand, assuring a second trip once careful assessment of lie and distance are completed.
2. Taking one's glove off and then, only when it's on'es turn to hit, slowly putting it back on again, tour-pro style.
3. Asking, "Are you away, or am I?" If it's that close, hit.
4. Not bringing all the wedges that you might need to a short shot around the green.
5. Faced with an open fairway, waiting to tee off while the player with the honor sits and marks scores. "Didymus, was that putt you picked up for a seven or an eight?"

No doubt some of these habits are borrowed from the tour, where the pace of play is now super slo-mo. (There's an idea. "Today's pace of play is sponsored by Turtle Wax....") As someone said, "If you were meant to act like a tour pro, there'd be a courtesy car in your driveway."

Love to hear from the rest of you on either your pet peeves or methods you've used to speed up play at your courses.

Bob Carney

"Hey, Kyle...Stay strong and keep practicing." Tiger Woods

Through Golf Digest Contributing Editor Mark Soltau, comes this message from Tiger Woods to Kyle Lograsso, the 4-year-old profiled by Dave Kindred in the May issue. Kyle, who suffers from ocular cancer, is an avid, accomplished golfer whose hero and inspiration is Tiger.

Upon hearing the story and Kyle's devotion to him, Tiger said: "Hey, Kyle: Read your story in Golf Digest and am glad you're doing so well. You're an inspiration to all of us. Stay strong and keep practicing. All the best, Tiger"

For all the letters and messages from readers to Kyle, see our Features area....