More comment on Hank Haney's November tip, "Know Where to Miss", this one from Bernard Stittleburg of Atlanta.

Haney writes an interesting piece...however I think he fails to realize that most golf course, at least those that I play, do not provide the weekend player a pin placement sheet. Usually the player is only told that the pin is either in the front, middle or back of the green. The rest you have to guess. It would be nice if all golf courses.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Dom Furore)

Beyond the theme of course remodels and how they should be done, the subject of yesterday's blog, one recurring topic at the Golf Digest panelist summit in Pinehurst over the weekend was whether playability is an element of greatness. Alister MacKenzie once praised Pine Valley but said that he did not count as great a course that was not playable for "every conceivable level" of golfer.

Tom Fazio, who acknowledged yesterday that he'd been accused of building courses that are "too easy", echoed MacKenzie's point of view yesterday. Fazio said his favorite course in the world was Pine Valley, but admitted it violated one of his fundamental rules in designing courses:

I personally believe that courses need to be extremely enjoyable for all levels of golfers. I believe you can make a course that's hard for Tiger and easy for beginners....and it all has to do with the placement of hazards.

If I can make a rule for golf, if I was rating a course, I'd say no hazards perpindicular to the line of play. I'd take off points for that.

But you take that beginner, how many balls will he hit in the creek?

Pine Valley is my No. 1 course. Golf Digest has that right. But I'd never design a course like that. Because it doesn't work for the beginning player.

--Bob Carney

(Photo of Wanamaker Course at PGA Village courtesy of PGA Village)

Greetings from Pinehurst and the third annual Summit of Golf Digest panelists, who rate courses for our Best New, 100 Greatest and Best in State course lists. Architects Rich Mandell, author of a new book on Pinehurst, John Fought, Dan Maples, Rees Jones, Geoff Shackelford and Tom Fazio, as well Pinehurst Superintendent Paul Jett, spoke on the theme of restoration and remodeling.

It was a theme that provoked fervent debate over just how closely a remodeler--or restorer--was to rely on the original plans, drawings and stated intent of the designer. It resembled a judicial debate on how literally one is to interpret the Constitution--with the strict constructionists in one corner (led by Shackelford and Fought) and the more liberal interpreters, Jones and Fazio, in another. Shackelford argued passionately for restoration that reflected and returned to original plans for old courses—a literal reading of the design "texts, " but with modern agronomy, irrigation, etc. He is especialy adamant that "Golden Age" courses of the Twenties and Thirties--by MacKenzie, Macdonald, Ross and others--not be tampered with.

Fought seemed to agree, recounting the meticulous research he had done to come up with old Ross plans and photos before undertaking the remodeling of Pine Needles prior to this year's U.S. Women's Open. Shackelford likened the process to the restoration of a classic car which on the outside appeared almost as it had when it came off the line, but might have new leather seats, a more powerful engine, and a catalytic convertor. A restoration that retained, as Shackelford put it, the antique flavor and feel of the original. "But then it's just a shell!" said someone in the audience.

Jones, who has remodeled Pinehurst No. 2 and his own No. 7, not to mention several Open venues, seemed to agree that this devotion was cosmetic. "Form follows function," he said. He criticized an almost fad-like return to "splashy" old unkempt looking bunkers as neither practical nor germaine to designs and symptomatic of an overly literal approach. "Every golf course with splashy bunkers should not make the (100 Greatest) list." Golf Digest Architecture Editor Ron Whitten has written something similar, saying literal restoration "is a substitute for imagination," a characterization that Shackelford scoffed at Friday night. It was that attitude, Shackelford implied, that justified an abandonment of a many a design's essence. Example: Recent Augusta National changes. (see Geoff Shackelford.com for Geoff's take on the Panelist Summit).

Fazio, who did that remodeling, was having none of it. "Put yourself in Hootie Johnson's postion. You are in charge. And you have the best players in the world and you have a venue that used to contain long, strong par 4s--No. 1, No. 5--that required a long drive and a mid-iron. What do you do. Well, it's a simple issue. You just fix it. You do it." Fazio suggested another exercise in imagination. He said imagine Donald Ross, today, watching Tiger Woods tee off on Pinehurst No. 2. The ball explodes off the tee. "Donald Ross has never seen anything like this, says Fazio. "What do you think he thinks? He's going to say, 'If that's the way golf is now, we need to look at that.'"

The three-day discussion and debate spilled over into the criteria Golf Digest uses for its course evaluations, especially two concerned with remodels, ambience and conditioning. "Should we eliminate conditioning as criterion?" Whitten asked Paul Jett. "If you eliminate conditioning, then call it the 100 Greatest Designs, not the 100 Greatest Courses," said Jett.

Golf Digest does not use conditioning in its Best New compilations. "I think conditioning and ambience ought to go off the 100 Greatest, too," said Jones. Factors such as ambience, conditioning and aesthetics keep deserving courses--he mentioned Cog Hill-- off the list underservedly.

Jones argued for using a new measurement: "Continuing interest." How does the course appeal, and play, over time. Essentially, is it the kind of course that dazzles and then dulls, or one that you'd want to play every day?

For our panelists, or anyone who loves golf course architecture, it was wonderful stuff and a weekend well spent.

--Bob Carney

More mail on the hole-in-one lady in the November issue. "Kudos to Dave Kindred for exposing Jackie Gagne in his fabulous article," writes Rodger Hergert of Rockford, IL.

Sixteen holes-in-one and no one ever sees the ball go in the hole? And a six-handicapper shooting a 61? I'm sorry but that is pushing the limits of believability too far. I also applaud Golf Digest for not recognizing the 16 "aces" as a record without more substantial proof. I find this whole story ludicrous and disturbing.

Ric Carroll of Grand Rapids had a more, well, visceral, reaction to the piece.

I have read your magazine for quite a while now. I keep the monthly issue around, and often review the articles. This issue had me fired up though. Your article about that lady with the holes in one? I got so mad, that I tore the 2 pages out with her pictures on them. I could not stand seeing her smug... little fake smile anymore....

"Shame on you lady!.....

--Bob Carney

More mail on John Barton's piece about Papwa Sewgolum in the November issue. Teacher Mel Sole, now of Pawley's Island, knew Sewgolum personally.

I had the privilege of playing a few practice rounds with Papwa at Kensington Golf Club in my first year as a Pro on the South African Tour in 1968.  I also played with him later at Durban Country Club prior to the South African Open in 1969.  He was a thorough gentleman and always had a helpful suggestion if I did not hit a shot the way I intended.  My biggest regret was not tapping more of his great knowledge on the short game.  His chipping and putting were masterful.

Sewgolum's "cross-handed" grip was one of the reasons for that. In his Breaking 100,90, 80, 70 in the same issue, Bobby Clampett suggests trying lead-hand-low on chips.

Sole again:

Papwa was a brilliant golfer who was struggling to compete in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The apartheid system took away his prime golfing years and I'm sure, if  not for that, he would have enjoyed many tournament victories and maybe a few major championships as well.

For more on Sewgolum, there's a 2005 biography by human rights lawyer Christopher Nicholson, Papwa Sewgolum: From Pariah to Legend, referenced in Barton's story.

--Bob Carney

"Two articles in the November issue grabbed my attention," says reader Dan Farrar, who lives in Tennessee.

The first was the article about Papwa Sewgolum and his "backward" (cross-handed) grip and how tremendously accurate he was within 100 yards of the pin.  The other article was Breaking 100/90/80/70 again referring to using the "backwards" or cross-handed grip for chipping.  (Bobby Clampett on Breaking 100).

 
Having played golf for 40 years left-handed and using the cross-handed grip for my driver, fairway woods, irons and putter,  I will admit to having drawn some strange looks and comments from other golfers and even from motorists passing by the tee when I was hitting.  One such interested observer was a Mississippi Highway Patrolman who stopped his squad car and ran up the elevated tee by the highway, hand on his gun, to watch my cross-handed drive.  After my 230-yard straight shot, he left shaking his head.  He said he had never seen anything like that and he just wanted to watch.   My golfing partner says "you're both inside out and backwards!!!!!"

I had an old boss, Dan, who had the chipping yips. It was painful to watch. He tried chipping with his eyes closed. He tried shipping left-handed, he went to short game schools, everything. But all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put his chipping together again. I think your tip--Papwa's and Bobby's, too--and that "wrong-handed" grip might have saved him.

We've got quite a few letters on the Papwa story. Some take Gary Player to task, as did a South African writer in our story, for not speaking out against the apartheid policies that in the end defeated Sewgolum. Here's an interesting 1966 Time Magazine story that quotes Player as saying:  "I play golf. I don't meddle in politics."

Thanks for the letter.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Dom Furore)

Leopold Lacy, a loyal California reader with a great name and real dedication to the game writes with question about a Hank Haney tip:

I enjoy being able to try the many suggested offerings I read about every month, always looking for ways to improve my scoring ability. Virtually all of the suggestions and drills are things we can put into use and try for ourselves. But Hank Haney's recommendation to "take a page from a tour player's course management book" seems to be something most of us don't have access to. It's easy to see how that kind of information would help increase scoring opportunities. But even some of the nicest course guides you buy at the counter (and I have many) can't touch the kind of information found in tour player books. Any suggestions on how a tour player want-to-be can get something like this for our favorite courses?

Those books that the pros have aren't easy to assemble and not like the ones they hand out at the counter. When we had the U.S. Girls' Junior Championship at our course a few years back, the caddies passed around a book of notations on our course. It was like reading a newspaper story about one of your relatives. How could strangers know so much about your family... or, in this case, the course you played for half your life?

Well, here's how: They make notes. They make measurements. And they put shadows over places you don't want to be. The most useful part of those diagrams were on the greens. Take the time to chart your greens and you will putt more effectively, I guarantee you. A friend of mine did that for us on a tournament course we played in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where, because of the mountains, even a two-footer was dicey, and it saved us.

Here's a couple pages from caddy George Lucas's book for the TPC Stadium Course. Check out the greens. Do you know yours that well?

--Bob Carney

(photo: Dom Furore)

Rocky C. of Pueblo, Colorado, got a kick out of November's Golf Guru advice about dealing with the self-anointed teaching pro, one of the most irritating subspecies known to golf. He wrote to tell us and send along a little advice of his own:

For the "guy who gives unsolicited golf tips" why not just tell him the other members of the group don't appreciate his comments and the next time you play, sit back and watch the paranoia!!!

For the guy with the white saddle shoes: soap, warm water, a towel and, for the unshineable scuffs, use white-out from your nearest stationary store. It works! Finish them with an oil sponge for a shine and water-proofing .

To clean the spikes/cleats, use a kitchen scrub brush (Wal-Mart, 97cents).

"Irritating sub-species"--that's great. I'll be using that!

--Bob Carney

(Illustration by Chris Gash)

Dave Kindred's story about Jacqueline Gagne has generated a lot of mail, mostly dismissive of Gagne's claims of 16 holes-in-one.

"Please, please, pleeeez, give readers no more impossible hole-in-one stories unless they have been absolutely, positively verified," says Bill Benjamin of Evanston, Illinois, representing the majority. Tim January of Cave Creek, Arizona, is a bit more straighforward:

Horse----!!! Her claim, not your article. Thanks for exposing the circumstances of her holes in one.

North Carolinian Krish Arunachalam wrote:

It was not just shocking to learn that [Dave Kindred was not able to document] all those aces but I was more appalled by the fact that the respected golf teacher and commentator Peter Kostis seems to have authenticated her claims by merely looking at her swing.

Kostis appeared on CBS's Early Show and called her swing anyway "the real deal."Says Krish:

My swing would be the envy of Elkington and I hardly ever in one-putt range the fifty percent of the times I hit the par3 greens. I am a decent enough golfer with a 13 handicap and am still waiting for the first hole in one.

Don Nichols of Riverside, California says Golf Digest's decision not to recognize Gagne's record was wise:

I just read the article on Jacqueline Gagne and her hole-in-one record in our November issue. I agree with your decision not to recognize this lady's record. I can't believe she made that many aces with no one actally seeing the ball go into the cup on most of them.

...If he'd walked the 6th at Dye and the 8th at Shore, he’d know if there were any logical place a ball rolling toward a hole cut behind a swale could have ended up without anyone seeing it. Otherwise "found in the cup" by someone other than Jackie Gagne sure sounds like "ace".... Next time you have space to fill, please don’t waste it. Show me how to get out of a bunker from a downhill lie.

As the story points out, Kindred made repeated offers to sit down with Gagne to talk about her aces, where she made them, and how. He was unsuccessful.

Gagne's call was a voice mail in which she proposed a deal of the sort that no reporter can make. She would sit for an interview if I first faxed to her lawyer the name of a source in my reporting along with what the source had said.

With all the mail, to both Golf World and Golf Digest, we've yet to hear from one of Gagne's playing companions who saw one of those aces go in..... and wants to set the record straight.

--Bob Carney

From Hugh Downing in Doylestown, P.A., where it doesn't get much prettier than this time of year, but could be a bit warmer, comes this suggestion, wrapped in a thank-you note:

I would like to suggest the following subtitle for the November, 2007 issue: "The Wrist Issue". Having been fighting a major hook and problems with my wrist position at the top of my swing, the article "How to Start your Swing" by Jerome Andrews was a revelation. To prove what he recommends (club and arms independently moving first), just look at the swing sequences of Ernie Els and Trevor Immelman.  In both cases the wrist cock has the club toe up and shaft in a direct line with the target, rather than a more "roundhouse" approach, moving everything in one piece.

Andrews is no fan of the one-piece takeaway, nor a tilt toward the target at the top of the swing:

A one-piece takeaay causes a fatal flaw in your backswing, a flaw that can be overcome only by compensations and athleticism....with a one-piece takeaway, the body turns early, then has to stop and wait for the arms and club to catch up. When the body has to wait, it tends to tilt toward the target, and the arms move out of sequence and lift. Unless you make a compensation, you lose a lot of power.

This hit home with Hugh...

After about a week of practicing the independent takeaway, I went to the range, and was amazed at the improvement in my ball striking. Dramatically increased distance and ball flight height with the first swing. And no hook! If anything, my flight was moving a bit too far right from "fade", but that's a matter of shoulder position and my weak, anti-hook grip.

As an “older” golfer who returned to the sport about 5 years ago after a 30+ year lay-off, I found the November issue especially entertaining, but after a summer of lessons and frustration, the takeaway shown by Mr. Andrews was the missing piece of my puzzle.

Congratulations, Hugh. And welcome back. When the weather warms up, I'll come visit and you can teach me how to hit a hook.

--Bob Carney