June 2010: Editors' Blog: Golf Digest

A New York Ryder Cup?!

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Comments

Lou Riccio, an old friend of--and contributor to--our magazines writes in reaction to Dave Shedloski's piece on potential Ryder Cup sites. As usual, Riccio, former New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner, comes bearing an intriguing idea:

Why not a Ryder Cup at Bethpage Black? When was the last time New York had a Ryder Cup? Great course for the players and spectators. New York is probably America's most international city. Weather is superb in New York in September. Transportation and lodging is ample for what would likely be the largest Cup attendance ever. Perfect!

Lucius Riccio New York City

Lou, we should evaluate this idea as soon as Bethpage dries out from the 2009 U.S. Open. It's almost there, so let's begin. You're right; it's a beautiful time of year in New York and the chance of a deluge like last June's is slim. More important, the World Cup has proved that New York City has the requisite number of bars and pubs with appropriate US and European loyalties. The only downside I can see that it's football season, when all of New York becomes obsessed with either the Jets or the Giants. Can golf compete for fan and sponsor enthusiasm? What's more, one wonders whether the State Parks Department would welcome another period of play stoppage and painstaking preparation in addition to its occasional Opens, or whether it might feel that aligning with the PGA of America for this project might jeopardize its status with the USGA. It hasn't hurt Oak Hills, Oakland Hills or Winged Foot, though, and I suspect you know more about those politics than we ever could. If you think it could happen, it probably can.

Hey, Bethpage playing fast and firm in the fall for the best players in the game--how much fun would that be! Count us in.

Keywords:

Rickie Fowler: Not "blander than poi"

Monday, June 28, 2010 Comments

In the June 21 issue of Golf World reader Tom Collins of Bangor, ME, averred that Ricky Fowler "needs to man up and get out of the pajamas and girls hats." Collins was not alone. Here is Gary L. Saeger of Allentown, PA:

Is PGA professionalism in the dress code fading? Enter Rickie Fowler a talented young golfer who apparently thumbs his nose at the professional image the PGA promotes. Apparently, the PGA 'rap tour' is surfacing. Like those 'gangsta' rappers, Rickie chooses to tuck his ears inside a hat two sizes larger than his head. What's next, side way hats, hair stockings and tons of bling? He may look cool while attending a hip hop or rap concert, but on the golf course, it demonstrates he never learned or was taught what golf professionalism and appropriate golf attire entails. Gary L. Saeger

But, surprisingly, we got more comments in support of Fowler. First, this one from a fan who followed Fowler for 4 days at the Memorial:

I had a chance to briefly chat with his Dad and his Mom. It was clear in those four days that Rickie Fowler is a very nice, respectful young man, who showed everyone there a lot of enthusiasm with his play and interaction with the gallery. His clothing choice is a breath of fresh air, adds some color to the tour, it seems clear he is well liked by his fellow players. The PGA Tour has needed someone like Rickie for a long time to bring in fans both younger and older, and we should be applauding him, not criticizing him. Brian Clark, Spencer, IA

And this one from Orlando:

The Tour needs more people like Rickie Fowler. He is a good kid with a game that knows no bounds. The fact that he has a little flair and personality in his style of dress is even better. I am sick of people insulting players who have a different look about them on the golf course, especially when this fashionista has some game to back him up. "Man up", "girls hats", "clown" ? This kid is wearing what he wants to wear and adding some vim and vigor to the Tour. With all due respect to the older crowd: The short sleeves that come down to your elbows and the pleated pants have had their day. Wake up and smell the same coffee that Doug Sanders was brewing decades ago. Adding a splash of color and a different hat doesn't make Rickie a clown; it just points out to the old guys who think that Peter Jacobsen is a snappy that the Tour needs people like Ian Poulter and Fowler, or they risk making the sport blander than poi. Brett Cafferty, Orlando, FL.

Six reasons we love Ricki Fowler. 1. He caddied in the Golf Digest U.S. Open Challenge, which proves he doesn't take himself too seriously and loves us amateurs. 2. He plays fast. 3. He plays with an elan that we haven't seen since Lanny Wadkins. 4. He has a swing that a caddy could love. 5. He's young and will, we think, bring more young players to the game. 6. He looks like he's having fun.

We live to defend golf tend to confuse tradition and fashion sense. Golf tradition covers honesty, sportsmanship, friendly competition and, yes a brisk walk. You might include respectful attire, but that does necessarily mean cashmere sweaters, polo shirts with collars and long pants. It doesn't even preclude cargo shorts,

as far as we're concerned. It's time we let the game breathe before it suffocates to death. End of sermon.

--Bob Carney

Keywords:

Hot List: What about those details?

Thursday, June 24, 2010 Comments

Months after it first appeared, the 2010 Hot List continues to generate mail. Here is a question about the detail we provide on irons:

I am a current subscriber to your magazine and I wanted to leave a comment regarding the Hotlist which I look forward to reading. In the 2008 Hot List, you had included "The numbers" box that included iron information such as top line in mm, sole width, toe height etc. And on the driver, it included a photo from the top and technical info. This information really set you apart from other reviews that I can easily get from generic online sites and other golf magazines. So, I did not understand your decision to go back to being sparse on info in your 2010 hotlist. I think many tech-oriented golfers look at the hotlist, so a little more technical info would do more good than harm. I hope this helps although I am sure that there is an opposition that says that some of the tech info is misleading or too much. Eiji Akaboshi, California

Golf Digest Equipment Editor Mike Stachura replies.

Every year we evaluate what we did with the presentation of the Hot List and how we might improve it. We have yet to get it perfect. Sometimes our decisions are dictated by the space available to us, sometimes our decisions reflect a desire to be more clear, simple and meaningful, and sometimes our decisions are based exclusively on reader feedback. Rest assured that removing the chart of numbers does not reflect a simplification of our process of evaluation. Also, be clear that we are looking at the best ways to satisfy reader interest with next year’s Hot List presentation.Certainly, in a world where marketing can tend to obscure some product differences (or perhaps overinflate them), listing meaningful measurements from a trusted, impartial source can be of some value. Determining what those measurements are and how to present them best is one thing we will consider for the future. Thanks for your letter.

--Bob Carney

Keywords:

Final Word on Golf Digest US Open Challenge

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 Comments

Letters continue to arrive commenting on Sunday's U.S. Open Challenge program, many of them more critical than compassionate. These four correspondents were not amused or entertained.

I am not a sexist, by any means, but thought it inappropriate to have a woman play Pebble Beach on Father's Day in the "Break 100 challenge". Give the dads a moment in the sun on their special day. Were it a PGA Championship, or Mother's Day, it would be different.
D. Graham, White Lake, MI

I am all for ladies playing golf with men however the U.S. Open Challenge should be for men only. You should have U.S. Open Challenge during the womens open as well. Just an idea to keep it fair for the person playing and enjoyable to watch.
Dave I., Charlotte, NC

I just finished watching the Golf Digest US Open Challenge. I must say that I think the event had some merit with the (3) celebrity players, but the amateur player was a joke. She has a long way to go to stand up to her resume and I think that Golf Digest should do more research on the people they pick. As a matter of fact the final tally of score was displayed as, I think it was said she shot 118 and at one point during the match she was already +48 or plus +49 and had 2 holes left to play. Next time when this event takes place try to give someone a realistic chance of breaking 100, not just try to increase your readership with the NOW crowd. What a joke! Keep up the good work.
Mark Dunn, New Hartford, NY

What a joke. Two things. Why embarrass a woman like that? Also, why ruin a neat challenge you had going? I will never watch again. She was so bad, you didn't even show her on the back 9. Wasn't this supposed to be about her? You really screwed hundreds of deserving contestants who actually had a chance. Why even consider a woman who can;t make the par 4 carry's? I'm very disappointed in you and we won't be renewing or subscriptions.
Mike Schroeder, Waukesha, WI

Three points. First, We did not "choose" Peggy; we nominated her, one of 5 nominees we thought worthy and capable of taking on the Challenge. She was then voted by the public--you--to represent average golfers on the U.S. Open course. Two, if we had forgone the nomination process and chosen Peggy, she would have been perfectly reasonable choice, one we would have been proud of. She was, from the tees she played that day, a 12 handicap, certainly on the high end of 100-breaking potential, but not someone who had "no chance." You might recall that in year one John Atkinson, an 8 from the regular tees and an 11 from the back, played Torrey Pines. He shot 114. Three, it should be apparent by now, based on both the Challenge scores and the Open scores, that this was a brutally difficult setup. A colleague of mine, a 6.8 index, played the course two days prior to the Challenge round. He hit his tee shot about 250 yards. With no cameras and no pressure, he shot 95 and he needed a par on the final hole to do that. Peggy's problem was that on holes 2, 3, 9 and 13, even her best drive would not have cleared the rough and made the fairway. Therefore, she needed to play nearly perfect golf on the holes she could reach the fairway and, on those lengthy holes, from the point she did reach it. Peggy did not play well enough on the shots from the fairway or those around the green to threaten 100.

That said, remember that of the other amateurs, all strong and capable of reaching every fairway, only one broke 100, and he shot 97. I tend to think that the fact that three amateurs in the event the previous year broke 90 worked against this year's foursome. Perhaps the USGA had shown leniency in setting tees for the Challenge in 2009; they certainly did not in 2010. Indeed, the tees were set as long as they could be, in some cases longer than the tees played by Open competitors. What's more, the conditions, especially when the wind came up during a sudden drop in temperature on the back nine, made matters even tougher. Finally, the rough, fresh and untrodden, gave up fewer playable lies than did the rough during the Open itself. It was the most consistent, most difficult I've seen at a major championship, with the possible exception of Turnberry in 1986.

For Golf Digest to nominate one woman, a club champion and 4.5 index, among 14 finalists in the first three years of the event, is no joke. It's appropriate, especially given Peggy's essay, and her touching story about playing Pebble as a child with her Dad.

Folks, it was really, really, tough out there. I'm not sure that any of our five finalists would have broken 100; in fact, I'm quite sure they would not have.

Sometimes the bear wins, and in this case the bear, Pebble, did. It's nobody's fault. And while I appreciate your frustration that none of our winners in the three years of the contest has broken 100, we're happy with our nominees, and proud of our 2010 winner.

--Bob Carney

Keywords:

Thoughts on Tiger and Father's Day

Sunday, June 20, 2010 Comments

If Tiger Woods roars back and wins the US Open today on Father’s Day, it is sure proof that God is alive, keeps careful track of our holidays and lives to poke fun at us. It’s evidence that he abhors newspapery character analysis, sermons on the The Great Game of Golf and believers who confuse their roles with his, namely judgment with a big J. Our Father is the cosmic kidder.

One could argue, too, that He’s using Tiger to remind us what sports is and is not, the way our fathers tried to, clouded as they were by their own hero worship. I’m reminded of all of it this morning because the New York Times sports section, a couple of pages from accounts of Tiger’s historic round yesterday, runs a brief Q & A with Al Kaline, the Detroit Tiger Hall of Famer, my father’s hero and the athlete he held up to his two sons as the way an athlete should be—hardworking, hustling, personable and humble. A star who, as the Times points out, “knew to hit the cut-off man.” As far as I know, Kaline was all of that and more, and there will never be a Kaline tell-all. I still have an autographed Al Kaline bat, and still think the sun rises and sets on the Tiger’s right fielder emeritus.

I might also have a signed Ty Cobb ball, but that’s another story. My Dad, as a little kid, ran down a baseball hit out of Briggs Stadium practice and, when the players walked out of stadium afterward, rushed to Cobb to have him sign it. “Where the (bleep) did you get that, kid?” asked Cobb, who then walked away with it.

Kaline and Cobb, my father’s Yin and Yang.

The whole Tiger (not Tigers) affair has forced me, like all of you, to look at my heroes and decide where I’ll put them in that cosmos, a variation of the Toy Story III characters’ dilemma-- life either in a museum or a playroom. It’s easy to say, “They’re just athletes. Enjoy what they do. Expect nothing more.” But how could my Dad love Kaline’s throws to the plate, his 3007 hits, without loving “the kid” himself? When my son was born 15 years ago this weekend I began a diary with an account of Corey Pavin’s amazing win at Shinnecock, suggesting with great presumption that my day-old boy ought to emulate Pavin, who I had never met, but who overcame such odds to best the field. (I recounted this to Pavin years later; he looked at me like I was slightly nuts).

When NBC’s Dan Hicks said yesterday—I’m paraphrasing—that no matter how you feel about what’s happened off the course in Tiger’s life, you have to be thrilled by shots like his second to 18, he was asking the same thing. Can we separate the two? Can we love Tiger, or any athlete, purely for his athletic feats, sifted from the gravel of the rest of his life? Your letters, if they are to be the measurement, come down on both sides. Some of you will never forgive; many of you already have.

My own sense is that the answer--on this Father’s Day--lies in our relationships with our sons and our fathers, imperfect relationships that have taught us lots about heroes, fallen and otherwise, sometimes with great pain. We’ve grown up because we’ve learned that life is not populated by role models, but by people, like it or not.

And the corollary of that is that any really talented person can win the US Open.

--Bob Carney

Keywords:

Is this U.S. Open setup fair?

Saturday, June 19, 2010 Comments

We’ve had three days to watch the best players in the world deal with the conditions at Pebble. Some of us (okay, we’re pretty lucky) have had an opportunity to experience the set up first hand. But, really, asks more than one reader, is this fair. Is this the way we want to decide our national championship?

The U.S. Open is a joke. And the U.S.G.A.’s claim that they are identifying the best player with these ridiculous course set ups only masks their incompetence. The bunkers at Pebble have rough around them longer than the “rough”. Only the U.S.G.A.’s “braintrust” could rationalize a course set up where being out of a hazard is worse than being in one. I hope one of the best players is not unlucky enough to fall prey to their childishness.
Michael J. Smith, Ventura, CA

Michael, I get your point. The rough around the bunkers, while beautiful in the afternoon wind and light, seems unfair when it catches a shot like Ernie Els’ at the 17th yesterday, a shot that was literally a few feet from being perfect. Els, trying to get his shot close, left it in the rough and made double. We have also heard criticism of the greens and great weeping and moaning about the 14th. But as I look at today’s leader board, with Els, Tiger Woods, Ryo Ishikawa, Graeme McDowell and Dustin Johnson, it seems to me that the set up is allowing many different kinds of players to contend--the long and strong, as well as the straight and subtle. What’s more, in two and a half decades at the magazine, I’ve never heard the praise for any “set-up man” as I’ve heard for the USGA’s director of competitions, Mike Davis. Davis’ graduated rough--diabolically consistent, we mortals who tried to play from it will tell you--and the firmness and speed of the fairways and greens that you’re seeing now, make it an incredibly challenging, but fair test. Is every aspect of the setup perfect. Hardly. But the USGA, it seems to me, has made it remarkably fair, consistent, and “available” (if that’s the right term) for very different kinds of players. The ultimate test, of course, is the final leader board tomorrow.
—Bob Carney

- Read more

Keywords:

Do the pros play the same balls as we do?

Thursday, June 17, 2010 Comments

When the cameras close in on golf balls at Pebble, you may see your brand of ball on the greens or fairways. But is it the same ball, really? One reader has his doubts.

I have heard from various sources that the balls the pros play are different/better than the ones we get in the pro shop. Is this true? If so, how are the balls given to pros different from what we buy?-- Thomas Markunas, New York

Golf Digest Equipment Editor Mike Stachura, with input from Golf World Equipment Editor Mike Johnson, replies.

The answer is yes they are different, no they are not better and no it doesn't make a bit of difference to anyone who pays his own green fees. Take a look at the USGA's Conforming Golf Ball list and you will see 15 entries for Pro V1, another 12 for Bridgestone B330, 10 for Nike One Tour (including two for Nike One Tour TW), 11 for Callaway Tour I, 6 for TaylorMade Penta and an incredible 48 that say some form of Srixon Z-Star on them. In fact, there are more than 1,000 balls on the conforming list, yet only 30 that made the Golf Digest Hot List. Those 30 are the balls you should be paying the most attention to.

But why would there so many version of these tour balls? Are tour players getting free balls that fly 30 yards farther, while paying customers get the generic models that somehow have restricted flight? Ummm, no. Here are the explanations:

First, some of those models are past versions of the current ball that players were used to playing and opted not to make the switch to the new model.

Second, some of those models are prototypes for models that may come on the market in the next year. Most major companies test their products with tour players before the product comes to market. Occasionally, those tests include use in tournaments (thus the ball has to be put on the conforming list first).

Third, some of those models are tweaked to certain players launch and spin preferences, while in other cases it might be a feel or even a sound adjustment that requires a minor change in the cover formulation.

Fourth, and this is particularly the case this year, players may be looking for a lot more spin to combat the loss of spin brought about by the new groove rule. That usually results in a slightly shorter ball off the tee. No company is interested in selling a slightly shorter ball to the average golf consumer.

In other words, I see these unique balls for tour pros as alarming as the special alligator golf shoes made for certain players. They won't help me break 100, 90 or 80 and neither will any of these special golf balls only available for certain tour players.

Thanks, Mike. Good question, Thomas.

--Bob Carney
Read more

Keywords:

Was the GD US Open Contest "PC"?

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 Comments

From the moment last Wednesday that we watched Peggy Ference play her first hole at Pebble Beach, I could feel this next letter coming. Since then I've heard it from other golfers; I've read it on the web. And it requires a response.

You turned a great contest into the "Who Gives A S***? contest. The idea was to see if an amateur could break 100 at the Open under the same conditions as the MEN who play in it. And what did Peggy Ference prove to anyone this year? Maybe next year you can pick a homeless person. Wouldn't that be a warm and fuzzy story. Nice job on ruining a great idea. What was the point of having a woman out there using tees that aren't even close to anything we see on TV? There is a Woman's U.S. Open in case you haven't heard of it. A giant YAWN on this years contest.
Denny Heatherly, Orland Park, IL

I've heard similar opinion, expressed with a bit more finesse, on other blogs. The idea seems to be that Golf Digest, determined to be politically correct, chose a woman as winner this year, despite the fact no woman could ever possibly break 100 from the back tees. Here's the deal. We have, in the course of three years conducting this contest, had one woman among fourteen finalists: none in year one, none in year two, one this year. That woman, a very good player who hits the ball about 225 yards and straight, captured 37 per cent of the public vote--you're part of that public, Denny--to win. She failed to break 100, just as the two men before her had. Indeed, her score, 118, is very close to that of John Atkinson's, 114, in year one. One can argue, and I will because I was at all three events, that conditions this year were the most brutal of the three because the rough was most severe, because the wind blew harder, especially on incoming holes where it cost the amateurs most, and because elements of the setup, including the unruly fescue growing on the edges of bunkers, made it the most difficult Challenge yet. Certainly, the scores of the other players bear this out. Only one, Mark Wahlberg, broke 100. Drew Brees, a fine player with a handicap index of 4.5, shot 102. Wayne Gretzky, handicap index 10.6, shot 100 on the nose. In year one, two celebs broke 100; in year two, three did. Those men played a course rated at 76.3/149. Peggy played a course rated 82.7/155. From those tees she was a 12--the outer limit of golfers with potential to break 100.

Peggy's biggest problem was the forced carries. The distances to the fairways from the tees at holes 2, 3, 9, 13 and 14 were insurmountable. (We played the course from the back a couple days before and a career drive of about 250 yards barely got me to the fairway at 13). She was left, on those holes and others, in deep rough that cost her not one but sometimes several shots to get back to the fairway. But the fact remains that Peggy Ference had the ability to break 100 had she played her other shots as well as she's capable. She would have had to be nearly flawless on those shots--to, around and on the greens--and she didn't come close.

That said, I'm pretty sure that, given the conditions that day, none of our other finalists would have broken 100 either. It was that difficult. Some writers have said that they thought the USGA may have toughened things up in this year's Challenge, brought it closer to real Open conditions, because last year all three celebrities-- Justin Timberlake, Ben Roethlesberger and Michael Jordan--all shot in the 80s. I don't know. I only know that this was the most difficult Challenge yet.

And Peggy, not on her game that day, paid the price.

Please, watch the show on Sunday. Tell us if you think that our foursome's high scores resulted from political correctness. Or simply the most monstrous Open set up in years.

--Bob Carney

Keywords:

Get Open coverage on Golf World Monday

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 Comments

We've received several very positive reactions to the new Golf World Monday, the new weekly digital supplement, which contains, beyond story briefs, lots of photos and even embedded video). If you're a Golf World subscriber and haven't signed up for it, go to Monday.golfworld.com and get all the information. If you're not a subscriber, you can sign up for Golf World Monday as an app through the iTunes store. It's early, but it seems as though GWM is a hit:

I am a long time subscriber of Golf World and continued my subscription after retiring and moving to Spain 2 1/2 years ago. Unfortunately my issues invariably arrive 3 or 4 weeks after the issue date (today I received the May 17 and 24 issues) and most of the news is ancient history by then. Golf World Monday is therefore an extremely welcome innovation in my situation and I will look forward to receiving it every Monday. Thanks again!
David Hell

LOVE IT! thank you! I especially love the imbedded video clips! Keep it short as this is a 'Monday morning work read.'
Richard E Todd, Amherst, OH

Enjoyed the first Golf World Monday. Thank you!!!!!!!!!
Roland T. Adeszko

--Bob Carney

Keywords:

Can Peggy do it? It will be rough.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010 Comments

The preparations are over. The coaching, except the advice that will come from her famous caddy, is through. Now it's up to Peggy Ference to see if an average Jane can break 100 on a U.S. Open set up. And this is no average U.S. Open set up. The USGA officials involved think it's perfect, which means the rough is deep, consistent, graduated and wrist-wrecking. It is fair, but golfers don't want justice, they cry out for mercy, and this is grass is merciless. It may be worse even than the rough at Oakmont, with no bare patches, no wispiness, no exit. It's the grass that grows under your dripping outdoor faucet, lush and lovely, unless you're a golfer. This rough swallows balls as completely as the Pacific does, and Peggy Ference's job will be to avoid it. "The answer is, don't get in the rough, period," said Erik Norton, one of the finalists in the first year's event who called Peggy this week. "Off the tee, around the green, do whatever you have to do to stay out of it; that's what I told Peggy." The rough is is the villain in this play and it presided silently over last night's rules meeting and dinner, waiting. Like any monster, it was the object of dark, nervous humor among its potential victims last night. The USGA's Mike Davis, responsible for the course set up, advised the players at the rules meeting that spotters would there on every hole to find balls that found the rough but that on occasion, "We may ask you to hit a provisional, and perhaps, if that shot is questionable, to hit a provisional for your provisional." Bubba Watson, caddying for Drew Brees, had a question. "Will the spotters be short of the fairway, too? Because I notice some of Gretzky's shots were not quite making it." The Great One, who'd played against Watson in a match during yesterday's practice round, laughed with the room. "We're going skating tonight, man." But there will be no skating for Gretzky, Brees, Mark Wahlberg or Peggy today. Only Brees has a single-digit handicap, 6, on this Open course; the others all fall roughly in the category of 10-handicappers, the ones Tiger said could not break 100 on an Open set up. Here is Peggy's reality. According to USGA handicap officials, though she is a 4.5 handicap from the forward tees, her Pebble Beach handicap becomes a 12 from the tournament tees she plays today. The course rating for is 82.7, slope 155. On three holes, the third, 9th and 15th, the fairway represents a carry longer than her best drive. If she and her fellow competitors get a break, it is in the fact that the fairways and greens have nowhere near the firmness they'll have next week. Greens are fast, but receptive. Peggy is remarkably confident, and thrilled to have Pavin by her side. Yesterday, during a round in which she got last minute coaching from her home pro, Allen Bowman, and tips on escaping rough and sand from caddy Corey Pavin, she shot 96, according to her brother Matt. That was yesterday. Today the NBC cameras role, and beginning in an hour, every shot counts, no mullies, no matter how many, no matter how exhilerating or embarrassing. "I have a good feeling," said former finalist Norton. "But it will be rough." --Bob Carney

Keywords: