Some fun times were had in the heavy snow over the weekend, but that's behind us now. So, you have my full and undivided attention...
A Pebble in My Shoe - I'll do my best to be sensitive, because I'm sure folks got their hopes up when a certain lefty made it into the final group. But this header seems to misinterpret what happened yesterday:
I guess we should at least hear his point before we reject it out of hand...
The Phil Mickelson way continues to win golf tournaments on the PGA Tour. Hit some bombs, attack some flagsticks, hole out a few times from off the green. The methodologyis sketchy and can initiate a fair level of anxiety. But it works.
And it worked again on Sunday at the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am. Only it was Nick Taylor who made it work. The Canadian journeyman beat Mickelson at his own game—doing more Phil things than Phil—to win by four strokes and register his career second tour title. And he did it right in front of the five-time major champion.
OK, that initial instinct to reject the premise out of hand seems even sounder, as he's described about two-thirds of the guys out there these days. More pressing, if Taylor channeled his inner Phil, who was this guy imitating:
Phil’s issue was hitting bombs. Usually he’d love that, but not on this day, not with someshort irons in his hands. He flew over more greens than the blimp. In the freshening breezes, Mickelson, despite his five wins and 12 top-10 finishes in 24 appearances, couldn’t figure out how to counter Pebble’s rebellious streak.
It cost him when Streelman closed with a 68 sneak into second place and keep Mickelson out of the top 50 in the world by one spot. Which means the lefty does not qualifying for the WGC-Mexico Championship in two weeks, an event he won two years ago.
Yeah, but Phil didn't just fly the greens with those wedges, he flew then entire zip code, usually leaving himself 40-50 yards back. But Phil remains quite the terrible player in the wind, his win at Muirfield coming during a relatively calm week.
As that last 'graph notes, it was quite the costly day for Phil. Had he been able to hold form, he'd have benefited from the no-cut, guaranteed OWGR points, making his push to play Winged Foot far easier. There's still time, but the hill just got a little steeper.
He was going along just fine, though losing ground to the Canadian who was holing out from bunkers and the like. At the 8th hole it just got weird, as Alan Shipnuck relates:
I though the announcer said he had 244 in, but he had to walk forward some fifty yards to even see the green. That tee shot on No. 8 is quite strange, a blind lay-up. As good as the second shot is on this hole, the drive is that bad.... But still, all one has to do is control one's distance, a skill it's reasonable to expect a professional golfer to exhibit.
As for the winner, I like this bit:
“We always say he is apologetically Canadian,” says Taylor’s agent, Chris Armstrong. “It’s a joke but there’s something to it.”
He should be, eh?
They all should be....
The Tour Confidential panel fails to come up with a Tiger angle for this week's confab, so they do the next best thing:
4. Nick Taylor did Canada proud by outdueling Mickelson in their Sunday pairing to win the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am. Another storyline was the strong performances by a pair of superstars who have been struggling to find their way: Jason Day, who finished 4th, and Jordan Spieth, who shot the lowest score in the field Sunday (67) to finish 10th. Day came into the week ranked 46th in the world; Spieth came in ranked 55th. Who is most likely to climb back into the top 10 first?
No Canadian, apologetic or un-, will move the needle....
Bamberger: Spieth. He’s in that window–no kids, nothing really else going on his life–where he can devote himself to fixing his golf problems. That doesn’t mean he can but he’ll have more opportunity and likely has more incentive to do so.
Kerr-Dineen: Probably Jason Day. Spieth seems to be facing different problems for each aspect of his game. Day’s issues don’t seem to be as deep-rooted, and when you can roll the ball like he does, you can never truly count him out.
LKD, is there anything more deeply-rooted than an inability to stay healthy?
Sens: I’m a Spieth believer. There’s just too much fire and fight in him for him to go quietly.
OK, Josh, but I think we can rule out the prospect of Jordan doing anything quietly.... Him going noisily might be too painful to watch.
Dethier: Spieth! He wasn’t great off the tee on Sunday, but he showed off some sensational ball striking and a tight short game. My biggest concern with Day is his health; it was just December when he withdrew from the Presidents Cup and told his wife Ellie that his career might be close to finished. Plus, read this quote: “As you’re an injured player, you think, maybe my time is just coming around the corner, and I might have to rack the clubs. And that’s a really terrible way of seeing it because I am only 32.” Considering Spieth couldn’t break an egg on Sundays last season, this was encouraging.
He's never been great off the tee, but it's been going the wrong direction. But has anyone ever heard the analogy "breaking eggs" used in connection with golf? Asking for a friend...
But before we leave this subject, let me direct your attention to this lede graph of Golf Magazine's game story:
Phil Mickelson kicked it away. Nick Taylor’s life changed forever. But the story of this Crosby Clambake was the telegenic host venue. A dry winter and a wee breeze on Sunday turned petite Pebble Beach into a monster, providing the U.S. Open conditions that the USGA was too timid to summon last summer.
OK, it was good fun watching them battle the wind coming in, but they were blowing past -20 before the winds arrived. Firm and fast is great, but Mother Nature doesn't always allow it. And those of us old enough to remember a certain Sunday in 1992, know how close it was to unplayable. Fact is, Pebble is an awkward fit with high winds, it's mostly designed to be played through the air.
Keep these issues in mind when we get to that Distance Insights report below....
Women Hardest Hit - For any LPGA players thinking about starting a family, now might be a good time:
For the second and third time in 2020, the LPGA has had to cancel tournaments that are part of its early season Asian swing due to concerns over the coronavirus.
On Sunday night, the tour released a statement announcing that the Honda LPGA Thailand, set for Feb. 20-23, and the HSBC Women’s World Championship, scheduled for Feb. 27-March 1 in Singapore, were both postponed. This comes after the tour had previously canceled the Blue Bay LPGA in China, which was to be played March 5-8.
In a statement, the tour said: “It is always a difficult decision to cancel events, and the LPGA greatly appreciates the understanding and all the efforts made by our title sponsors (Honda and HSBC) as well as IMG to host incredible events for our players. The health and safety of our players, fans and everyone working on the event is always our highest priority. While we are disappointed that these tournaments will not take place this season, we look forward to returning to Asia soon.”
That's a joke, not a hate crime. Just a shame, but getting the ladies out of Asia seems like a needed step. It just creates a huge hole in their schedule....
Did Someone Mention Distance? - One of those effortless segues for which I am revered....Shall we start with the TC Gang?
1. The governing bodies dropped their much-anticipated Distance Insights Project on Tuesday. The message in the strongly worded, deeply researched document was clear: the time has come to nip distance in the bud. “We believe that golf will best thrive over the next decades and beyond if this continuing cycle of ever-increasing hitting distances and golf course lengths is brought to an end,” read the USGA’s accompanying conclusions report. The organizations proposed two primary means by which they might address the issue — (1) modifying equipment specifications, and (2) instituting a local rule that would allow committees to run tournaments with limited-flight equipment — but nothing will happen until at least the end of 9- to 12-month feedback period. Did the report signal to you that the governing bodies are finally on the verge of taking significant action?Michael Bamberger: A local rule is not significant UNLESS AUGUSTA NATIONAL decides to put in use. That would seem unlikely. (But cool if it ever happened.) The USGA needs to build a consensus that SHORTER IS BETTER among a group of constituents who don’t believe that’s the case. Golf has a long history of NOT TAKING REVOLUTIONARY ACTION. I’d love to see something happen here. Hard to see how it will.
Luke Kerr-Dineen: The ‘woke’ golf crowd loves to rag on the USGA, but it must be said: The organization has been on a winning streak with a series of decisions recently, and this report was one of them. Fans love to point to how quickly swimming banned those suits after the 2008 Olympics, and how seamlessly college baseball dealt with its distance problem, but golf isn’t like other sports. To tackle the distance problem in golf, the USGA has to manage a series of big business and other multimillion-dollar interests that make it an almost no-win situation. They’ve responded by going slowly but diligently. Doing research, but making sure everybody is on board, and acting in a way that’s good for the game. It may take slightly longer than many golf fans want, but I firmly believe that slow and steady will win the race. Golf will reign in this problem, and will do so in a way that won’t erupt a civil war in the process.
Josh Sens: It’s hard to imagine anything happening quickly on the equipment front. The commercial interests working in the other direction are just too strong. In the short run, the bigger impact I can see it having is on raising awareness of/and promoting interest in shorter courses, modified rounds and other options. These things allow people to play without having to devote an entire day to it and make golf more economically and ecologically sustainable. If progress is made on that front, that would be a welcome change.
Dylan Dethier: I guess it depends what’s considered “significant action.” The USGA’s stance that increased distance is bad for golf felt very significant. But they also made it clear they’re not looking to significantly roll back equipment; if that’s the case, driving distance will continue to creep up as players continue to bigger, stronger, more athletic. If people are looking for radical change, I don’t think we’re going to get that — but something will happen.
Given that the rewrite of the rulebook was a yawn, I fail to see this winning streak referenced by LKD.
The report should be understood as a significant change in tone by the ruling bodies..... But, of course, it's the same that were telling us that there's nothing to see here for the prior twenty years.
2. Distance is decidedly not a problem for most amateurs. In fact, the conclusions report states that average players largely don’t hit their drives far enough for the tees from which they’re playing, and that at most courses even the shortest tees are too long for the shortest hitters. Is the handwringing over distance an overreaction to what’s happening in the pro and elite amateur ranks?
Bamberger: Bifurcation is a loaded word and not the correct word for this situation. Virtually all non-elite golf is played by some casual version of the rules, by which the parties agree for play in accordance with rules they devise. Elite players play courses that are, in terms of distance, WAY shorter than the courses we play: 7,500 for them is 6,000 for most of us, but we creep up at the pros creep up. One simple starting point is to make ordinary male golfers comfortable with 5,900 yards (get of the “6,000” stigma). For women, take off at least 1,000 yards. A straight 470-yard par-5 is plenty of hole for most of us. #mindset.
Kerr-Dineen: It speaks to the overriding issue that, unlike basically every other sport, golf has to manage the recreational and professional levels simultaneously, when they are essentially different games, with completely different sets of problems. It’s why I’ve always come down on the side of bifurcation and, frankly, have never fully understood the counterargument.Sens: The report makes a pretty compelling case for all the ways distance is hurting the game, so in that sense, I don’t think it’s an overreaction. A more persuasive argument could be made that it’s too mild a response, issued too late.
I love Mike Bamberger, but in both of these Q&As he's having difficulty staying on topic. But it's this last answer I'll focus on:
Dethier: Several of us were on a call with the USGA in which they made it explicitly clear they’re not going the bifurcation route. “We play under a single set of rules, we believe in that strongly, it’s a strength and virtue of the game and we’re steadfast in retaining that,” Mike Davis said. But yes, most players should move up tees, get their egos out of the way, play faster and have more fun. This wasn’t just a “distance is bad” report — it took a look at distance, period.
Riddle me this, Batman? If Davis is ruling out bifurcation, then what was the purpose of suggesting a local rule to control distance? They've made a persuasive case that something needs to be done, is it as simple as the fact that they want others to do it? Under that scenario, Phil gets his wish and nothing happens....
And one more on this topic:
3. Many Tour players were predictably dismissive of the report. “I didn’t really read anything tangible from the report; I only saw that they didn’t want each generation to continue getting longer and longer,” Phil Mickelson said. “I struggle with some of our governing bodies. I struggle with it because we are the only professional sport in the world that’s governed by a group of amateurs, and that leads to some questionable directions that we go down.” Does Lefty have a point?
Bamberger: Lefty made a point but I would say different from the one he was trying to make: the amateurs who run the USGA and the R&A–in concert with a group of highly trained professionals–aren’t looking to make money in the game. That keeps them pure. Pro golfers are typically trying to move product in the interest of making more money. The amateurs who serve at the USGA and the R&A have something broader in mind.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the purity bit.... As we know, the USGA has its own issues, and it's hard to square with the money grab of that Fox contract.
These guys make mostly the same point without making it about Phil:
Kerr-Dineen: Truth be told, I never put much stock in anything pros have to say about larger issues about the game of golf. Why? Because pros operate in a bubble, trying to play better tomorrow to cash a check and maximize their career, without much thought about larger industry factors. More credit to them. I’d do it; you’d do it; any rational person in that situation would act the same way. But it also means that basically everyone in that position is going to defend the status quo. Lefty isn’t necessarily wrong, but the subtext of his comments — and like most pros’ comments on the matter — is always the same: That pros think that they should be able to do whatever they want, and that the rest of the game should follow along diligently.Sens: In fairness to Mickelson, he acknowledged that he was speaking of the cuff, which I was glad to hear because almost nothing he said about the report stood up to much scrutiny. Amateurs hold sway over all kinds of sports. I’m pretty sure I could beat Adam Silver in a game of one-on-one hoops. Mickelson’s comments about golfers being punished for improving their skills were even more head-scratching. The argument against distance is that it’s making the game a one-dimensional test, requiring a narrower range of skills.
I just think that comment of Phil's about being governed by amateurs is one of the stupidest things to ever come out of his mouth, itself an extremely competitive category. As Josh notes, every sport is governed by amateurs, even those that don't have a strong amateur participation. As you know, I come at it from a slightly different perspective.... Phil wants us to be like other sports, so I'd ask him to name all of those sports where the player brings his own ball.
Again Dylan gets his own call-out:
Dethier: It’s easy to snipe at the USGA, and pros have delighted in doing just that in recent years, but I think the only legitimate criticism in this case is that the governing bodies haven’t acted quickly enough. There’s no silver bullet solution now, which means to some extent, the governing bodies can’t please everyone. That opens them up to criticism — but they’re used to that.
Or, you know, acted at all....
Joel Beall has an interesting column in which he considers that it might be less filling and yet still tastes tastes great:
Why players are right to jab the USGA on the distance debate … and are also off the mark
I'm gonna guess that it very much depends on which players are doing the jabbing...
When the Distance Insights project was announced in May 2018, many assumed the USGA and R&A were holding kangaroo court for a pre-determined agenda. It was anotion dismissed then and now by those involved, who say its mission was to gather research and opinions on how distance affects each individual and all aspects of the game.
“We are looking at distance in a very holistic way,” Rand Jerris, the USGA’s senior managing director of public services, said to Golf Digest. “The golf ball is not the focus of this project.”
A rollback has been the presumed outcome for many on both sides of the debate, a prevailing theory being that the USGA has been saving the resources to wage a legal war. Except multiple current and former USGA employees say that’s not the case, stating the last thing the USGA and R&A want are courtroom battles and broken relationships.
“It’s there in the beginning of the summary," a former USGA employee said. “ ‘[The USGA and R&A] are trying to protect the challenge and character of golf.’ From what they have gathered, this is the route to reach that objective.”
Yes, that assumption was reasonable given their prior reports, in which they went to pains to Hide the Decline Increase. Now suddenly it's a serious issue.... Nice to see that they've woken up to that which the rest of us notice, but now comes the hard part. Obviously they see the difficulty in implementing any change without the support of the other "Families", and no argument there.
If you take the USGA/R&A at their word, this is an existential crisis for our game, and ultimately they should be willing to fight this fight without allies, if necessary.... But remember, per Frank Hannigan, the biggest issue with the USGA is their need to be liked.... That's gonna be a hard egg not to break..... I know, but egg analogies are all the rage these days.
Geoff has some tangential notes related to this topic. First, pay no attention to those equipment manufacturers behind the curtain:
To the point of something broader, a few numbers to consider and which the USGA/R&A cannot point out without hearing excessive manufacturer whining.
Golf is an $84.1 billion industry in America when you factor in everything from courses, to travel to sales, according to We Are Golf.In the United States, the National Golf Foundation puts the manufacturers contribution to that number at $2.6 billion. Frankly, that seems woefully low to me, but even if you quadruple the number it’s still not a significant portion of the golf industry.
Interesting.... though I do think they punch above that weight class. But the bigger issue is with the two PGAs, no? One can handle the manufacturers with a united front, but we're nowhere near that, and it's hard to see the Five Families all on the same side of the table on such issues.
Geoff has this interesting post as well, in which he takes on the existential question of whether chicks do, in fact, dig the long ball. I'll just excerpt this pie chart on whether distance is a problem:
Maybe these guys should have run the Iowa caucuses, as they seem able to handle basic arithmetic.
While I preach caution, Geoff's point is a good one, that the polling does not clearly confirm an attachment to distance. While most of us will immediately agree that watching DJ pound it 280 sounds unappealing, distance is at its core a relative concept. The ability to hit it long and straight will still be rewarded under any scenario, no?
We have many a mile to go (ironic, eh?) on this subject, so stay tuned.
The Riv, A Premier Event - We're headed to LA, and the field is loaded, as per Geoff's header:
Premier: 2020 Genesis Invitational Lands 9 Of World Top 10, 19 Of Top 25
That's great, but did you catch what Geoff did there? I had been reliably informed that the Premier Golf League is needed because the best players in the world rarely face off against each other.... But of course they do, at the majors, WGCs and a small number of PGA Tour events (this, The Players, and the Memorial jump immediately to mind), so the market opportunity escapes me.
Many are focused on the team concept, and that might be the most appealing aspect of the initiative. Shack has a long post on the team concept, so forgive this long excerpt:
—Modeled after Formula One’s concurrent individual and team formats, a season-long points race leads to an individual bonus payout and determines team seeding at the final event
—Featuring 3 days of match play, all 12 teams of 4 players each vie for a $50 million purse. (This is on top of the 17 prior events playing for $10 million each week, plus appearance fees each week based on a ranking system. However, I still do not see the initial season lasting more than ten events if it hopes to lure most of the names below, but we’ll see.)
—Two scores from the four teams would count each day during the season. Those points build the team’s place in standings, and eventually leads to seedings where the top four will receive a vital playoff first round bye.
—The team element hopes to deliver a “cohesive season narrative” according to the documents I saw, aiming to engender “greater passion, rivalry and spirit between the players” along with greater fan allegiance and tribal engagement.”
—Get ready buggy drivers and assistants! “Team Managers will represent their teams on and off the course and determining which of the team’s two players each day count toward the world championship performance.”—The changes in lineups each day, along with the season-ending mini-Ryder Cup format where managers will be making tough-love decisions, makes for the “richest possible media content and entertainment value both on and off the course in terms of news, politics, gossip, strategy tactics and selections (fantasy sport brought to life).” This just in: McIlroy team manager Paul McGinley has moved from EZGO to Club Car in a new three year deal after a weak battery cost him a chance to make a last minute lineup change, etc...—While not stated in documents, one would presume these dramatics would eventually extend to the proposed feeder tour possibilities, including managers and owners potentially sending someone down or elevating a player clearly ready for the Premier Golf League.
I think this is the most interesting aspect of the initiative, though I think also that the reaction is a bit over the top. I just wish folks would go easy with those Ryder Cup analogies, because one can copy that event's format and not recreate the excitement.... to wot, the Prez Cup.
Though I do love the concept of relegation, most especially on the individual level.
Of course, life and golf are far from static, and Geoff makes that point:
And now for the $350 million question, who might be the twelve players targeted as a player-owner offered the chance to purchase a team maximum of 75% (documents use the word purchase, but I was not privy to what this would actually entail for players. Presumably there will not be a high price since they hope to lure players away from major Tours. Or perhaps players will be able to join forces with a rich friend?).
Nearly 18 months ago, the list of prospective player owners included some whose games have severely fluctuated since then (Jason Day, Jordan Spieth, Francesco Molinari, etc…), making the decision to offer players these roles possibly the most challenging aspect for the league founders.Based on the initial list I saw and the description of players to be selected as based on “global profile, personality, marketability and playing potential and/or record,” here would be the most likely candidates. Oh, and don’t rule out an elder statesman, great talker or overall personality like Ernie Els, Padraig Harrington or Ian Poulter to enter the equation. (Els said last week he “loved” the idea.)
Did he really love the idea? Or was he merely excited that somebody might write him a big check? It's all great at the hypothetical level, but the vast majority of these guys don't bring a single additional viewer or fan to the event. And that money you waste on Ian Poulter isn't available for Victor Hovland and which do we think will be the more relevant golfer five years from now?
Spoiler alert, here are your twelve team captains:
Rickie FowlerDustin JohnsonBrooks KoepkaHideki MatsuyamaRory McIlroyPhil MickelsonJon RahmJustin RoseAdam ScottHenrik StensonJustin ThomasTiger Woods
OK, I think we know the team colors for that first and last entry....
Again, the reason why we should care about any of this escapes me.... Maybe the draft itself might be interesting, as Tiger snubbing Jordan Spieth could be entertaining for an hour.
But that's a pretty marginal list of actual golf talent, no? And no shortage of injury risk as well...
But I still await a reason that I should care about such teams...
I'm holding some fun items in reserve for tomorrow, so stop back then.
No comments:
Post a Comment