November 2011: Editors' Blog: Golf Digest

Reader's encounter with rudeness raises question. We respond.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 Comments

On-course lack of etiquette, including but not limited to slow play, is the bane of our game, and the source of many, many letters. This one today, for example.

I visited a very nice Southern golf resort over the Thanksgiving holiday and encountered something new -- rudeness! I was playing as a single the day after Thanksgiving. There was no one in fron of me on the front nine, but I caught up with a fivesome on the 11th hole. I waited on the tee for them all to hit their second shots and, while waiting, noticed a twosome teeing off on the 12th. I hit my tee shot to the middle of the fairway and, while driving to my ball, noticed that there was not another group on No. 12 tee. The group ahead was nowhere near finishing, so I picked up my tee shot and headed to the 12th tee. By this time, the twosome I had noticed teeing off were leaving the green. The hole was now wide open. In the middle of my swing on the tee, someone from behind yells at me and two of the fivesome come charging up. The other three were still on the green, hadn't finished 11, but these guys were angry that I was jumping in front of them and claimed I shouldn't be out there as a single, that they had waited on every shot, etc.

Instead of pointing out that there was an open hole, I just said I didn't realize they were finished on 11 -- they weren't -- and gave them the tee box. Knowing there was no way they were going to let me play through, I just went back to the clubhouse and watched football. The resort was great, refunded half of my greens fee and apologized for the fivesome's behavior. My question is, did I do anything wrong?? Thanks!
David McCollum, Houston, TX

We don't think so. We think fivesomes ought to be humble. You get permission to play 5, you keep your head down and your mouth shut and let faster groups play through. A member of a fivesome telling a single he has no place on the course is like Bernie Madoff calling Charles Ponzi dishonest. Our response would have been...."I'll get out of your way. Bye." And we'd have teed off. Or, "I'm playing up to join the twosome." If you felt those options were out, you might have asked the pro shop for a suggestion. They would know another spot on the course where you could have slipped in, and in the meantime might have learned about a fivesome they were unaware of.

Waiting on every shot, my arse.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Even the kids are going with the belly putter!

Monday, November 28, 2011 Comments

Golf Digest's December cover story on Belly Putting (with Web Simpson) got your attention--and got you writing, too. These two letters represent the long and the short of your views, you might say.

Dear Editor: I had to chuckle as I read the Editor's Letter in this month's Golf Digest. Jerry Tarde warned "There's a 6-year-old somewhere taking up golf with a belly putter, so watch out." My 5-year-old son prefers to putt with my grown-up size putter and it's 35-inch shaft rather than the kid sized one that came in his bag. He naturally anchors it on his chest and grips it just like Keegan Bradley. He's not worried about the legitimacy of the stroke, he just loves hearing and seeing the ball drop into the cup. Cheers!
James Jackson Santa Cruz, CA

Dear Editor: A putting instruction article from Steve Stricker is long overdue. Look what he did for Tiger on Day 4 of the President's Cup. Tiger says that if Stricker has something to say about putting, he's going to listen. We're all ears -- or, in the case of your magazine, all eyes. Also, a good instruction article on putting conventionally in this belly putter age would be nice.
Bruce Robertson Dallas, TX

Bruce, great idea. Stricker does a lot of things well, on and off the course, but his putting has certainly been overlooked. Thanks for the suggestion. You might enjoy our slideshow on the variety of putting styes that work for the pros.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

We give thanks for the reader who says: Golf is not a verb!

Friday, November 25, 2011 Comments

The keeper of the Editors' Blog is most thankful this weekend for your correspondence. Why? Because it keeps us editors (we editors?), and many of golf's broadcasters, on our toes. I especially enjoyed this email from an Arkansas reader, who has had it with what he sees as sloppy verbiage in our sport.

Dear Editor:

Let a movement begin, please, to ask those involved with golf to consider: Golf is a noun, not a verb. One plays golf -- one does not golf. One plays golf on a golf course, not a track. Horses and automobiles do whatever they do on a track. And please, writers and announcers, it is Pebble Beach -- not Pebble. Las Vegas, not Vegas, Cypress Point, and so on. Finally, dredge up "driver," "brassie," "spoon" and "cleek" -- "3-metal" is so absurd-sounding. Maybe you might also consider the discontinuance of letters-to-the-editor.

I feel better.

Sam Buchanan Little Rock, AK

We love sticklers like Sam, who wrote a second email to correct his first: He'd written "3-medal" instead of "3-metal." To your final point, Sam, you are one of the reasons we would never advocate the discontinuance of letters-to-the-editor. Now we feel better, too.
Bob Carney

Keywords:

Presidents Cup Footnotes: Alister MacKenzie saw Cypress, but not Augusta, Gary

Monday, November 21, 2011 Comments

We got several letters about the Presidents Cup, some with questions, some with suggestions, and some with corrections. Let's start there:

One California reader (and Cypress Point archivist) writes to correct a statement by Gary Koch during the weekend's broadcast. In discussing Royal Melbourne's designer, Alister MacKenzie, Koch, according to the reader, noted that MacKenzie also designed Cypress Point, but that MacKenzie never saw Cypress in its finished state.

"That statement is wrong. Dr MacKenzie played innumerable rounds at Cypress Point, and the club has many photos to prove that point. He did not see Augusta National completed..."

Koch no doubt meant Augusta, which MacKenzie also designed, but did not see complete, as he died about the time the course opened and the same year it hosted the inaugural invitational that would become The Masters.

Our World Monday coverage of the matches prompted this complaint/suggestion from Louisiana reader William Young:

I wonder why David Toms is not mentioned in your Top 10. He was ignored in the press conference and now in your article. I know that Tiger gets all the notice, but a little bit of recognition for a clean-cut, 44-year-old would be nice. I have known David since he played high school golf in Bossier City, LA, and wonder why he is constantly ignored. His performance at the Presidents Cup was outstanding as usual and his points helped the American team much more than the points by Tiger.

Hard to argue that Toms got insufficient mention in the telecast either, based on the hours I watched. David is amazing. Talk about a quiet assassin. Thanks, William.

We also got a couple of questions, suggesting that both our coverage and the networks', may assume that readers/viewers know more about match play than we think. California reader James Peters asks:

As a long time Golf Digest subscriber, I have a question. After watching the first day and referring to Tiger's first match, what does the "the International team won by 7 and 6" mean?

It means that the International team of Adam Scott and KJ Choi were 7 holes ahead of the Steve Stricker/Tiger Woods team with only 6 holes to play. So the match goes to the Internationals. At that point in the match, after the 12th hole, the Scott/Choi team had won 7 holes and lost none.

A Mississippi reader, Fletcher Coker, asks a good question about Foursomes, the alternate-shot format, where two players play one ball, hitting every other shot.

In alternate shot, "A" and "B" are partners. "A" putts and misses, and the remaining putt is conceded to "B." On the next tee, who tees off?

Whoever did not tee off the previous hole. In Foursomes partners tee off on either the even holes or the odd ones. That does not change, regardless of who putts out on a given hole. So, even if "B" is responsible for the final putt, if "A" teed off on that hole, "B" tees off on the next one.

More letters to come, I'm sure. I trust they'll say that the play was exciting, the course wonderful and the competitive tone just right. We'll see.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Slow play is a tour-player problem, says one reader

Thursday, November 17, 2011 Comments

Dave Shedloski's recent Golf World column advocating that professional golf learn from recreational golf and create one or more timed golf events--tournaments where one's pace of play is combined with his score to produce a result--drew this positive letter:

First, kudos to those who have instituted time-par events. However, the pandemic of slow play comes from the professionals that every amateur wants to imitate. The solution, which I have advocated for several years and no one has had the guts to publish the suggestion (perhaps GW will be the first) is this:

At the start of the first PGA event of the year the first group off is told “You will finish in four hours or less or all of your group will be disqualified.” No exceptions for “rulings” etc. (They are pros, they should know and understand the rules well enough to keep playing). The second and each consecutive group is told. "You will be ready to hit your approach shot on the 18th hole when the group ahead of you holes out, or all of your group will be disqualified."

Not only will the players discover that playing more quickly actually helps them, they will also do a great service to the millions of misguided amateurs who have fallen into believing that slower is better. When this approach is taken for every tournament in the U.S., including majors, we will see an end to slow play within a couple of months in the amateur ranks.

Fred Brattain

Director of Instruction

The Disabled Golfer's Learning Foundation, Inc.

Corona, CA

Oh, Fred, would that it be so. What's the expression, "When pigs fly"? I actually think competitive amateur golf has a chance to accomplish what you're aiming for, and, who knows, that might lead to some real action on the tour front. We'd love to see a timed event, too, just to show, as you point out, scores need not suffer a lot if at all. By the way, Dave did a fine story on tour-level slow play in 2008. Check it out.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Digest, Jenkins draw more fire on Tiger edit

Tuesday, November 8, 2011 Comments

Yesterday we published a couple letters from readers on our coverage of Tiger Woods, specifically on the Tiger facial hair video that ran on the site recently and the Dan Jenkins column on fictional Tiger "texts" that appears in the new December issue. Although we saw it all in good fun, these readers do not agree.

Jenkins' writing, making fun of Tiger Woods, is in very poor taste. A question for the editor: Are you trying for the niche market of crude jerks who play golf? A few more columns like Jenkins' and I will leave the magazine since it will be no longer aimed toward me -- a pity because other areas of the magazine are superior.

Steve Hansen, Michigan

I was surprised by the Dan Jenkins December 2011 article on Tiger Woods texting. Of course, Tiger bashing is great fun. However, a repeated lack of class in journalism is just bad. A magazine that publishes trash is of no interest, even for the sacred game. I am canceling and thought you should know why.

John Friedeman, Arizona

We'd only point out, as we did yesterday, that Tiger has received years of positive coverage from our publications and many others--and will in the future. Indeed, some would argue that he's enjoyed kid-gloves treatment from the press for most of his career. So we'd invite you to take the long view on our coverage of Woods. But we appreciate your comments and your taking the time to send them.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Reader: Can he press a Nassau bet like that?

Saturday, November 5, 2011 Comments

We got a good question this week about presses on Nassau bets from a California reader. See if you can answer it before we do:

A golfing buddy is down 6 on the front nine of a $2 Nassau. He wants to press the back nine and the 18. He says both are new bets, i.e. the back nine is double, which I agree with, but he believes the 18-hole press starts a new bet, i.e., all he has to do is win by one on the last nine to win the 18 press. I say he has to beat me by 7 to win the 18-hole press. Who is right? Nothing on the internet seems to address this when discussing a Nassau. Thx.
Mark Blakey, Bonita, CA

Dear Mark: We asked two betting experts, editor Guy Yocom, who has played more Nassaus than I've taken breaths, and editor Ron Kaspriske, who wrote a book for us on golf betting formats, and the consensus is: You're buddy's right. Here's Guy:

"Deceptively simple and I've been on both ends a hundred times. If the guy who is six down at the turn presses the back nine and the 18, and wins the back 1-up, he nets out winning $2. He loses the front ($2) and the 18 ($2). But he wins the back ($2), the back-nine press ($2) and the 18 press ($2). The brain freeze occurred with Mark thinking his opponent had to win 7 of last nine holes to win the 18-hole press. That isn't the case; a brand new bet for the 18 starts right there. The status of original 18-hole bet does not apply to the press."

As Ron points out, you don't have to accept any press, either, unless they are declared automatic at the start of the match and you agree.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

A Tiger fan objects to Jenkins

Friday, November 4, 2011 Comments

As the Presidents Cup nears, a season somewhat lacking in Tiger Woods news has changed dramatically. And it's not all about Stevie Williams. From this point on, we predict, it will be All Tiger All the Time, or pretty darn close. As long as it's about his golf, that's fine with the reader below, who found our recent efforts on Tiger, especially Dan Jenkins' column in the new December issue, objectionable. Jenkins wrote about "texts" that Tiger had sent to friends, colleagues and his ex-wife--the basis for a book, the star thought.

Sample:

Steiny: How you coming on the endorsement deals for bunkers and water hazards? You know I was in 22 bunkers and hit four water shots at the PGA. Shouldn't that speak for itself? "Put your golf ball in sand or water and come miss the cut with Tiger Woods!"

Not funny, said one Canadian reader.

Dear Golf Digest:

I received the December issue today and when I was reading it I got to the article which was written by Dan Jenkins about the Tiger text-message book. This is the second month in a row that I have been thoroughly disgusted by an article in the magazine. Last month was the Tiger facial hair bit and this month the Tiger text book. I am sick of reading articles by petty old men that still after two year voice an opinion that no one cares about. Tiger has done more for the game of golf and for your magazine than any other person in the game. Yet, you still continue to publish articles at his expense. I am getting very fed up with these kinds of articles in the magazine and think your writers should get some class and find some other topics that people actually care about and write about that, rather than ones beating on Tiger. I will actually consider cancelling my subscription if this keeps up.

Ryan Edwards, Canada

"Wit is educated insolence." Dan Jenkins said that. No, he didn't; it was Aristotle, but it might have been Jenkins. We get your point, but this magazine and most others have also spent a great deal of time over the past decade singing Tiger's praises. He's made that more difficult for us lately, but I think you'll find that when his game returns--and I'm one who thinks it will--the tide will turn. Meanwhile, you're more than right: Tiger's contributions to the game and to this magazine have been significant.

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Reader: Putting's where the rules go haywire

Thursday, November 3, 2011 Comments

A Canadian reader reacted to a previous discussion here about long and belly putters.

Dear Editor: I agree with gentleman from New Jersey who wrote to say that he felt long putters should be banned. A few other observations:

(1) Line on ball: It is ridiculous that the ball be picked up and placed using the line for direction. The golf ball should not be touched from tee to hole unless ball interferes with another players putt. Or, if muddy conditions ball can be cleaned on green.

(2) Two-man team: The caddie should not be allowed to stand behind his player and aid in alignment.

(3) Tour stats: Most ridiculous two are GIRs and number of putts. If player A hits shot 2 inches off green and 12 ft. from the hole that is not a GIR and the putt is not counted. Player B could hit his shot on green 80 ft from same hole and he has a GIR. Who has hit the better shot?
Gary Mroz, Ottawa, Ontario

Good points, Gary. But as a cop in New York said to me after listening to my 20-minute account of being robbed, "You understand we can't do anything about this, right?" The game, I'm afraid, has passed us purists by. Still, I like your No. 1 observation. The game is plagued by an epidemic of ball-marking and ball-washing and ball-fiddling-around. Stop it! Leave the darn thing alone unless it's muddy. Don't mark it unless absolutely necessary. And putt to completion if you can.

'Course, you understand none of this will never happen, right?

Meanwhile, there's a great package in Golf Digest's December issue on belly putters and how to use them. Also check out the excellent Mark Wood instruction about them on golfdigest.com

Bob Carney

Keywords:

Study: You do better with "a pro's" putter.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 Comments

Want to make more putts? According to a Canadian study, you'll make one more in every 10 (5 instead of 4) if you think the putter you're using belonged to a tour pro. Really. In fact, the hole even looks larger to you. According to a report in the Montreal Gazette, the University of Alberta researcher who conducted the study, Charles Lee, told half of a group of some 40 right-handed amateurs who followed the Tour that the putter they were using belonged to Ben Curtis. Thirty-eight per cent of that group putted better.

Those led to believe their putter previously belonged to Curtis sank more putts than the control group: an average 5.30 out of 10 versus 3.85, representing a small but statistically significant benefit. In addition, a computer-assisted experiment showed they perceived the golf hole to be bigger than those in the control group: 9.6 centimeters versus 8.75 cm.

Superstition?

“Maybe the things that we consider superstitious really aren't,” says Lee, whose study appears in the journal PLoS ONE. “Maybe they really are grounded in scientific reality.”

Interesting. Golf Digest enjoyed a visit from Dave Stockton last week. Based on what Stockton told us about putting, and on how he emphasized the mental aspect of it, I'm not sure he would be surprised by this finding at all. In fact, it wouldn't shock me if he said: "I told you so."

Stockton's teaching goes well beyond the psychological, of course. Check out these four Stockton tips on putting. Might help even more than Ben Curtis' putter.

Bob Carney

Keywords: