April 2011: Editors' Blog: Golf Digest

Reader: Are you sure about that golf ball Hot List?

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 Comments

Golf Digest's golf ball Hot List, part of the May issue, drew a good question from a reader about the similar performance levels of two Bridgestone balls, though one is two-piece, one three-piece.

Are you sure the scatter chart on page 68 of your May 2011 issue is correct? You have the Bridgestone e5 ball, a two piece ball, tagged as No. 14 on the chart, showing a higher spin rate and lower launch angle than the Bridgestone e6 ball (No.15), which is a two-piece ball. Both are listed as "gold list" balls, but normally a three-piece ball will have a higher spin and lower launch angle then a two piece ball. Can you please confirm that you haven't inadvertently confused the two balls.

Gene Barron

Here's Mike Stachura, Golf Digest's Senior Editor Equipment, with the answer: The Bridgestone e5 ball features a urethane cover, which is designed to spin more on short game shots than a ball with an ionomer cover (like the Bridgestone e6), regardless of the construction type. In other words, the number of pieces in a ball does not exclusively determine its spin rate. Rather, it’s the material in the cover that has the greatest effect on short-game spin. Generally and put rather crudely, the grooves will grab a urethane cover while on an ionomer cover, the grooves do not catch the ball and so it slides up the face of the wedge leading to a higher launch with less spin. Note, as well, that spin does not equate to feel. You can have a ball that spins a great deal off a half-wedge but does not feel “soft.” Conversely, you can have a ball that feels “soft,” yet does not spin significantly on a short-game shot.

Mike spent a half-hour answering some other good questions about the golf ball Hot List on partner-site GolfWrx.com recently ....

Bob Carney

Keywords:

What's my wife's handicap if she plays the whites?

Monday, April 25, 2011 Comments

The question of adjusting women's handicaps when they play from the men's tees--or adjusting stroke allocation when men and women play against one another--comes up every year. Here's a great example from a reader in Florida.

Could someone please assist us with this little matter. My wife and I have been playing golf for 6 years now, always together, we simply love the game. However, we have discovered that at many courses there is no handicap or slope rating for women other than the forward tees. My wife is a great golfer we practice as much as we can, ever score we use to track our handicaps. But since Louise is more than capable from the so-called "Men's" White tees. She loves to play for the challenge, but most courses do not give us the information to process her scores for her handicap. Come on people get over it there are women out there that can play the men equally and beat them. Only the forward tees, really! Have these people never seen the LPGA? We are not professionals by any stretch but I think my wife is an awesome golfer. It is so "old school" that women need to play from the front tees. Is there a way for us to calculate the correct handicap and slope rating? For example the 'mens' Black tees are 73.7/131 at 7024 yards. White tees are 69.3/119 at 6073 yards. But the Red tees for her is 70.1/114 So how do we get fare figures for Louise from the Whites? Off the Red the course is 5277 yards.

Ian Dow, Sorrento, FL

It certainly does change.

Contributing Editor Dean Knuth points us to the USGA Handicap Manual, Section 5-2g.

"Posting a Score from an Unrated Set of Tees on a Rated Course Authorized golf associations issue a USGA Course Rating and Slope Rating for the most commonly played sets of tees. If a USGA Course Rating and Slope Rating from a selected set of tees are not available for the appropriate gender, the player may apply the following procedure on a temporary basis:

⿢ Locate the nearest set of rated tees for the appropriate gender;

⿢ Determine the yardage difference between the set of tees being played and the rated set of tees;

⿢ Using the following table find the range that includes the yardage difference.

We took Dean's advice and did the math. Using the USGA's table and your information on the two sets of tees (797 yards difference), we determined that your wife should add 4.4 points to the course rating and 9 points to the slope rating of the forward tees. As a result, the Whites for your wife would play to a 74.5 rating and a slope of 123.

Is that more like it?

Bob Carney

Keywords:

"Are you kidding!" Readers weigh in Trump's favorite-course list.

Saturday, April 23, 2011 Comments

The favorite golf course lists that accompanied Golf Digest's America's 100 Greatest Courses list this in the May issue--by everyone from Amy Alcott to Lanny Wadkins--included one would-be presidential candidate who recently challenged the President to a match for the nation's highest office. That list one drew some readers' ire.

Why would you waste the ink printing anything about Trump? The only surprise is that arrogant douche bag included non-Trump courses. I expect more from Golf Digest. Who, except Trump, [cares] about what Trump thinks about anything.
Steven Miller, Natick, MA

Donald Trump has no place in an article in which you ask some of the great golfers of all time to list their favorite courses. His being "out of place" was further made obvious by the total lack of class and style he demonstrated (not unusual for Trump!) by selecting more than one his own golf courses. Shame on you for providing him the platform on which he could once again display his unbridled arrogance and insatiable ego!

Joseph Houghton, Jacksonville, FL

I simply do not understand why you included Donald Trump's list of favorite golf courses along with the lists provided by the famous professionals. Who cares what Trump thinks about golf courses. The fact that he listed many of his own courses is doubly awful. It looks like your good name was used.

Richard Jonson, Seattle, WA

Whether you like Trump or not, he is a force in golf these days. One of his facilities has hosted the U.S. Junior Amateur and U.S. Girls' Junior championships, and don't be surprised if he doesn't land a major some day. The Trump Bedminister courses that held the junior championships has been considered, according to USGA sources, as a back-up U.S. Open site in case of a natural disaster at the site of the Open. One non-Trump letter suggested that we may have one misinterpreted Nick Faldo's choices.

Gents, In your article "My Favorite Golf Courses" in the May 2011 issue, Nick Faldo's No. 5 choice is "The National." Your website states he is referring to "National Golf Links. I would argue that he is talking about "The National" in Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada, George and Tom Fazio design from the mid-70's that has consistently ranked as the No. 1 course in Canada and has placed in the top 100 anywhere. He played the course a few years ago in a televised Skins Game. Would love to know if this is the case.

Dennis Martini, Georgetown, ON

Mr. Martini: The National near Toronto is also one of our favorite courses, a great design that manages to be both strenuous and playable at the same time. It's also one of tour professional Mike Weir's favorites. But in this case we're quite sure Nick was referring to National Golf Links on Long Island in New York. Let's put it this way. We wouldn't turn down an invite to either. Thank you all for your letters.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

You're not alone, thank you, Kevin Na!

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Comments

We got lots of mail about Kevin Na's 16, and when we asked our Facebook friends to describe their worst holes, we got a load more of double-digit disasters. Here's a letter expressing for all of us the warm feeling of connectedness Na provided...and some of those Facebook posts:

On behalf of all the hackers out there, I would like to thank Kevin Na whose 16 now allows for a new standard of par for us high digit handicappers. Just think, an 8 is no longer a snowman or a quadruple bogey--it is now a half Na. Sounds so much better, doesn't it? A 10 is a 5/8ths Na; a 14 could be an eagle Na or a Neagle. A 15 could be a Nirdie. The possibilities are endless. Our new baseline for scoring-the "Na scoring system" is a godsend for all those whose handicaps are approaching the ionosphere and rising!

Daniel Breitberg, Georgia

Brendan Waldock: Took ⿿13 on a par 3. Put 5 OB and didn't have any balls left. Had to borrow some.

Elana Bryan: If I'm playing in a tournament, I can't pick up. If I'm not playing in a tournament I play until I reach my ESC score. That being said, I took a 12 on a par 4 during a tournament once....water and plugging in a bunker were problems for me that day. Painful!

Charles Williams: Also made a 16 on Northfield CC (VT)'s 532-yard par- 5 on the final 9, in our member-member tournament a couple years ago. Tournament, so I couldn't pick it up. Dan McGregor: Fifteen ⿿with 3 OB on a par 5. (Or an 8 on a par 3 with 6 in the sand... I'm a great bunker player these days...

Blaze Grinn: I found a body once. I took free relief from it, but still made a 6.

That's cold, Blaze. Thanks, all, for you comments.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Reader: LPGA/PGA Tour merger is Mars and Venus

Sunday, April 17, 2011 Comments

Ron Sirak's recent report on the possibility of the PGA Tour partnering with the LPGA Tour, drew surprisingly few letters. It generated one annoyed objector, however.

I would like to comment on Ron Sirak's article concerning the PGA [Tour] combining with the LPGA. It's amazing to me how feminists like Ron Sirak can use such convoluted reasoning to further their cause. I can see the headlines now after the combination.

-- Female golfer sues the PGA for sexual discrimination in Federal Court for negotiating larger purses for the men than for the women golfers.

-- Female golfer sues the PGA for sexual discrimination for negotiating more tournaments for the men than for the women golfers.

-- Female golfer sues the PGA for sexual discrimination for not allowing the female members equal pensions from the large pension fund of the PGA.

-- Female golfer sues the PGA for sexual discrimination for not negotiating a Master's Tournament at Augusta similar to that of the men.

Sirak uses over a thousand word article extolling the virtues of such a combination but really never gives any meaningful benefit the PGA would derive from such a combination. Sirak should visit a muni course on a normal summer day like the rest of us peasants and see one reason why the LPGA isn't as popular as the PGA. The number of men not only greatly outnumber the women, but if he were to look a little more carefully, he would note that most of the women are there because their boyfriends/husbands dragged them there...

Frederick E. Juliano, Morris, IL

Mr. Juliano, you visit different golf courses than we do, and you have a very different view of female golf professionals than ours. That's not to say, however, that there won't be complications with such a merger. We just don't think it will be these.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Readers on Tiger Woods coverage: Nobody's happy.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 Comments

Readers had a hard time agreeing on the quality of coverage this past Masters weekend. And as always, they differ widely on the media's coverage of Tiger Woods.

Goodbye, Golf Digest. I will cross you off my site list. Jenkins laid it out: "I have this thing about Tiger. I'd like him if he ever treated the press better"... "Writers like any player who is good to the press." The press thinks they have become bigger than the game. I could care less what talking head is covering the story; just do your job. If I wanted that attitude, I'd watch TMZ.

Bereth O'Callaghan, Dublin, Ireland

You are not alone in feeling empathy for Tiger. Geoff Shackelford's criticism of Woods' post-Masters interview drew lots of criticism itself.

When are you people going to get rid of all the Tiger crap? Every golfer I know is sick of all the press he gets. He treats all people like crap, slams his clubs all over the place, and has the worst personality in golf.

Trevor Herdman, Burlington, CA

Would someone please write an article on why U.S. golf pros choke in the majors and allow themselves to be outplayed by golfers from every other country on the planet?

Robert Horne, Montana

Let's point out a couple of things: First, the American who did not choke in this Masters, who, in fact, finished at the top of the U.S. list, was Tiger Woods, thus deserving of coverage. But reader Horne is right about recent American problems in the majors. Right now, European Tour players hold all four major trophies--a Euro slam (though two those players are from South Africa). That has not occurred since calendar year 1994 when Jose Maria Olazabal, Ernie Els and Nick Price (British Open, PGA Championship) took all four.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Readers react to Masters coverage. Critically.

Monday, April 11, 2011 Comments

It was an amazing weekend, one we will talk of as long as they wear green jackets at Augusta National, but it was not perfect, and the first comments we've got, surprisingly, find fault with the coverage--and in some cases the ones being covered.

Did Phil say the wrong thing to the wrong guy? During the 4+ hours of CBS Saturday coverage, unless I missed it...and that would have been easy to do...there was not one shot of Phil Mickelson...not one. Plenty of Tiger, of course (when are the networks going to realize he’s now “one of the guys” and not “the guy”?) and legitimate coverage of the other contenders. But you’d think last year’s winner would deserve to have at least one shot shown, even if it wasn’t great, just so viewers would have an idea of how he was doing.
Jack Harms, Muskegon, WI

You wonder why people hate the media coverage of Tiger. They blamed Tiger's missed putt on 12 on his playing partner. Laird took too long. Made God wait. Can't be Tiger's fault!! Waaah. You always make excuses for him; the only player you ever make excuses for!
Dave Riffey Sr., Shell Lake, WI

So, Tiger refuses a media interview after a 5-under round with a disappointing back nine on Masters Sunday, while Rory McIlroy grants one after his humbling 8-over 80. Says a great deal about both golfers — well done, Rory!

Don Lowdon, Ottawa, Canada

Actually, Tiger gave an interview, a brief one, that left many feeling he'd missed another opportunity to present the "new" Woods. He was curt, and in contrast to McIlroy's patient recounting of a disastrous day, left us feeling short-changed. It's his choice, of course, but Geoff Shackelford, and many others, found it as "testy" as you did.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

On '86 anniversary Sunday, another Jack story

Saturday, April 9, 2011 Comments

Reader Ted Harbert, Sr., who often surprises us with his reminiscences, provides one this week about Jack Nicklaus playing with Ben Hogan during one of the latter's last appearances at Augusta. Worth passing along on the 25th anniversary of Jack's great '86 win....

On the Tuesday practice day, Jack was playing with Mr. Hogan. [Golf Digest founder] Bill Davis and I picked them up on the uphill 8th. Uphill climbs were not easy for Ben. Halfway up the hill, he was laboring. We could see it. Nicklaus said, "Ben, if it's OK with you I've gotta go see where this pin is. The diagram is lousy." And off he went at a slow pace. Hogan sat down on his golf bag and lit a smoke, delighted for the rest.

As he passed us near the ropes, Bill said, "That's really nice, Jack!"

"He's earned it," Jack replied.

Ted Harbert, Sr., Los Angeles, CA

Hogan played in 25 Masters, the first in 1938, the last in 1967. He won in 1951 and 1953. Jack, who won six green jackets, played in 44 Masters, the first in 1960, the last in 2005.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Get a look at why Golf Digest's Jerry Tarde won PGA's top honor.

Friday, April 8, 2011 Comments

At this week's annual Golf Writers Association dinner in Augusta, the PGA of America bestowed its Lifetime Achievement in Journalism Award to our own Golf Digest Editor-in-Chief Jerry

Tarde.

The PGA's video about Tarde is an entertaining, behind-the-pages look at the man who has edited Golf Digest for more than 25 years. With comments from Tom Watson, Dan Jenkins, Thomas Friedman and others, it explains how Tarde's been able to recruit everyone from Herbert Warren Wind to John Updike to Tom Brokaw to write for the magazine. Meet a guy who loves the game as much as you do, and one we all enjoy working for.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

How couch-potato 'rules officials' lost some clout.

Thursday, April 7, 2011 Comments

We receive loads of letters from you about the seeming inequity of disqualifying a tour player who's turned in a card based a call from a television viewer. It seems unfair to many of you that a player like Padraig Harrington, unaware at a European event in Dubai in January that he'd violated a rule (his ball had moved, though he did not see it), had no opportunity to review the situation before signing his card. Disqualification was seemingly the only option for the tournament committee. No longer.

Today at the Masters the R&A and the USGA announced a change to the rules so that

Harrington, for example, would have been assessed a two-stroke penalty but not been disqualified. The limited exception, the two associations stressed, applies to situations where where a player is ignorant of the facts--in Harrington's case the movement of the ball--but not of the rules. Harrington knew the rule, just never saw the ball move.

In a case where a player breaks a rule because he doesn't know the rule, he's out of luck. Example: Camilo Villegas, unaware that he's not allowed to move a divot in the likely path of his ball did so in violation of Rule 23-1, signed for the wrong score and was disqualified at the Hyundai Tournament of Champions in January. In sum: Harrington, unaware of a fact, has the appropriate two-stroke penalty applied even after signing his card--but doesn't suffer disqualification; Villegas, unaware of the rule, violates it, signs for the wrong card and is still disqualified.

"The R&A and the USGA feel very strongly that one of the pillars of the game, one the the principles of the Rules of Golf, is knowing the rules; playing by the rules," said USGA Executive Director Mike Davis. Was there a sense of urgency to this change? Davis again: "It became more urgent for us the more and more disqualification penalties we were seeing that were fact-based and that the player simply couldn't have known. That's what the urgency was."

Davis acknowledged that the tours had participated in the deliberation. For players like Harrington who suffered disqualification with little recourse, today's is a good change....too long in coming.

Bob Carney

Keywords: