And a lovely weekend it was, although golf played absolutely no role in that. Got some year-end stuff for you today, but if you found last week's blogging low energy, be prepared to move those goalposts yet again.
Year-End Wrap, Tour Confidential Edition - Golf.com's éminences grises took time out from Dallas pummeling the WFT to offer thoughts on the season just concluded. of course, we could point out that only in the tortured logic of those living in the 904 area code would we be in the middle of the year, but that's not important now.
1. What a golf year! Among the highlights: Hideki won Japan’s first green jacket; Phil became the oldest-ever major winner; Nelly won a major and gold; Tiger spent most of the year in recovery before a nearly triumphant return in December; and, of course, Brooks vs. Bryson. When you look back at 2021 a couple of decades from now, which story is most likely to most resonate?
More like annus horribilis, no?
Alan Bastable: Tiger’s romp with Charlie at the PNC was a blast to watch on many levels (it’s alsostill so fresh in our minds), but I give the nod to Phil’s win at Kiawah. What’s easy to forget about that week is how poorly he was playing, relative to the field, coming in. In the six primary Strokes Gained categories, Mickelson ranked no better than 120th. That PGA Championship was a reminder of the blessed nuttiness of this game: on the right course, over the right four days, age can become nothing more than a number.
First, can we agree that it wasn't much of a year in the majors? In the case of both Hideki and Phil, the wins were historically significant but aesthetically lacking. To a large extent that was due to the challengers (though Hideki certainly scraped it around), as I'm still trying to figure out who was impersonating Brooks Koepka at Kiawah. Unless, of course, you believe that a result of Phil's explanation from the commentary booth at The Match.
Michael Bamberger: Phil’s win was the most unexpected thing, but this was the year that Tiger’s life, athletic and otherwise and by his own admission, changed forever. Very likely the greatest golfer to ever play the game will not enjoy the long sunset that Arnold and Jack and even Hogan did. It was a soaring, incredible thing he did at the P-and-O (parents and offspring) with his son Charlie in December, but the underlying event was what happened on a quiet Los Angeles road on Feb. 23.
Funny you should mention Hogan, Mike, because the comparison speaks volumes about Tiger. We're supposed to ignore (I'm not actually sure where Mike is on this) Tiger's own agency in his accident, as if it's OK to imperil the public when you're late to a photo shoot. Hogan, in contrast, was truly a victim of bad luck, but instinctively threw his body in front of wife Valerie, thereby demonstrating that toxic masculinity that we're fortunately banishing from polite society.
Josh Sens: Those were the most captivating for me as well. But the story that is likely to have longer-term implications involves the rival tours, which raise all sorts of legal, ethical and practical questions: about the strengths and weaknesses of the PGA Tour; about how, where, when golf will be played around the world; about the character of players and other participants, and on.
So, the biggest story in golf in 2021 was the PIP program God help us all...
Nick Piastowski: The Tiger story jumps out — if this is it, then the moment in February will be forever frozen in time, but if he somehow slips on another jacket or hoists another jug, then we’ll look back and wonder how he, as he termed it a few weeks ago, climbed the mountain. Again. But I’m going to agree with Josh. I’m not so sure we’ll see any real resolution on the rival tour fronts by the end of next year. But I’m betting the PGA Tour takes more steps to ward off any and all in 2022. And I think there’s a good chance that, in maybe about two or three years, we’ll look back at this year as the one where pro golf began to seismically change.
Oh yeah! But including PIP, Live Under Par™ and the ubiquitous and unseemly embrace of sports betting, is there any of this that's improving the experience
Is there a chance I'll like the answers to this one any better
2. Conversely, which story from 2021 did not get the attention it deserved?
Not if I know our writers...
Bastable: Tiger’s crash would be high on the list. Obviously, the accident itself was covered with great intensity, as was his recovery when Tiger made details available, but so many questions still linger — including why he was driving so fast and how Woods truly feels about having altered the trajectory of his career. We may never get those answers. Also, for all the buzz around Phil, shoutout to 47-year-old Stewart Cink, who did not get enough credit for picking up two titles in 2021. Raise your hand if you saw that coming.
I actually like Alan's instinct, though he can only take it so far. Yes, the Tiger story, specifically the crash, didn't get the attention it deserved, at least the portion involving the actually crash. Of course, what Alan elides, is that he and his fellow golf writers refused to perform any actual acts of journalism to inform us of what actually happened and why.
Cink was actually a nice little one-day story, though the son on the bag would seem an important part of that.
Bamberger: Mickelson’s win at the PGA. How on earth did he do it? We saw the shots. But what was happening that we could not see? Astounding, really, given where his golf had been, given his age, given how long he has been at it.
So, why didn't you write that story, Mike Though I've been reliably informed that it was all because Phil was nice to Brooks....
Sens: I’m with Alan on Tiger. The accident gave rise to all sorts of raw and honest moments from Woods. But as always seems to be the case, there seemed to be so much more to it than any of us will know.
But why is that Josh? Don't you know anyone capable of chasing that story
Piastowski: All good answers. But Jin Young Ko’s 63 straight greens in regulation to close the year and help her win the CME Group Tour Championship. was ridiculous. And underappreciated.
That's an oddly specific answer.... admittedly, 63 consecutive GIRs is pretty sick, though I'd have thought the larger picture of Nelly v. Jin Young an obvious answer with merit. Of course, if an LPGA member cuts down a tree in a forest.....
3. For sheer entertainment, which 2021 tournament do you think delivered the most value?
I know you think you know what's coming...
Bastable: The women’s Olympic golf event was a seesaw thriller that I was glad I stayed up to watch — with two titans in Nelly Korda and Lydia Ko battling against the homeland hero, Mone Inami, and India’s short-hitting Aditi Ashok, who impressively contended despite wearing out her hybrids. It was a fascinating blend of players and styles. With the gold medal in the balance, a late-in-the-round weather delay ratcheted up the tension even more. Korda ultimately prevailed but I was on the edge of my seat (bed?) until the final putt dropped.
Do the writers get PIP points for promoting the Olympics? I'm not even sure that was the most interesting bit at the Olympics, as I might have gone for the 7-for-1 playoff for the Men's Bronze Medal. They still can't make Olympic golf matter, but it was the first time in our game that anything besides winning mattered.
Bamberger: The Solheim Cup. Loved the course, the swings, the teams, the camaraderie. It was all about the golf. There’s not enough of that.
It was certainly more interesting than that comparable men's event held a few weeks later, and team match play does rock. But it's an event that poses troubling existential questions, because the best women players in the world are excluded.
Sens: The U.S. Open. For all the grief that Torrey took for the architecture set, it delivered yet another electric finish.
Meh! How was that week any different from watching King Louis kick away any other tournament?
Piastowski: All good answers again! To add to the conversation, I’ll add the two-man, six-man playoff between Patrick Cantlay and Bryson DeChambeau at the BMW Championship back in August. Some of the best shot-making and putt-making in sudden death you’ll ever see.
But was that even the best playoff on Tour this year?
More importantly, how is it possible that there wasn't a single vote for the PNC as the most exciting (maybe entertaining is the better adjective) tournament of the year?
That this guy gets his won Q&A confirms that it was a kidney stone of a year:
4. We can’t talk about 2021 without talking about Bryson DeChambeau, who between his speed training, UFO sightings and feud with Brooks Koepka may have found himself in more headlines than any other player. In your mind, has DeChambeau’s impact on the game been overstated or understated?Bastable: I’ll say understated when you consider that he has forced every one of his opponents to reconsider what is possible in terms of distance. Exhibit A: Rory McIlroy who admitted that chasing Bryson’s numbers drove Rory out of his comfort zone and ultimately derailed his game. And that’s the thing: Bryson’s distance is not just about swinging hard. It’s about swinging hard and controlling his clubhead and a hundred other things. Turns out hitting 400-yard bombs in the heat of competition is a difficult formula to master.
That's actually a cogent case, though it would have more resonance had it been written in late December 2020. Alas, Bryson didn't play well enough in 2021 for it to feel like it matters right now.
Bamberger: I’ll say overstated when you consider that it is very unlikely that other golfers are going to do what he has done to his body, to the conventional notion of how to swing a golf club or even choose your golf clubs. He’s a one-off. The UFO thing is cool.Sens: Was there a day in golf this year that didn’t yield a Bryson headline. No doubt he’s one of the more compelling characters in the game, but I don’t know how you could say that we in the media didn’t wring him dry for every possible shred of what we now call ‘content.’Piastowski: In the present, a bit overstated. Like Josh mentioned, Bryson’s exploits do get plenty of pub, quite possibly more so than golfer going right now. But, I think when we look back somewhere down the line, how he’s both changed his body and emphasized a go-for-broke style will be remembered as pivotal. Yes, it’ll still take talent to make a score, but, as Bryson has tried to do in other avenues, he’s shaved that difficulty down just a fraction, and the next generation is taking notes.
Nick makes a good case, with which I tend to agree. The bigger issue is whether 2022 is a bounce back year, which I'm thinking it will be.
5. What was your most memorable interaction with a Tour pro or other golfing notable in 2021?
Bastable: Remember Hunter Mahan, one-time Next Big Thing? He’s had just one top-10 finish since 2015 but he’s still out there grinding and chasing the dream. Earlier this year, I was trying to reach Mahan for a story I was reporting on the 10-year anniversary of the Golf Boys. He was happy to oblige. Mahan called me from the Honda Classic, and gave me 25 minutes of Golf Boys gold. Then it was back to the range.
If only they had included the word "current in the question... If "Golf Boys gold" isn't an oxymoron, then the word has no meaning. For what it's worth, Golf.com has a compendium of eighteen feature stories from 2021, including the aforementioned piece:
My reaction? Take a look at those Golf Boys:
The career arcs of all four are identical, asymptotically approaching milk carton status.
Bamberger: Jim Thorpe, at the PNC. I was asking Thorpe about his swing–he took it slightly outside and held on with all his might. No release at all. He said, “This one time, I’m hitting 4-irons next to Tiger, on the range. Tiger says, `Thorpey, hit me a hook 4-iron.’ I say, `Tiger, I don’t hit hook shots.’”
Thorpey? Give it a rest, Tiger!
Sens: Driving around Stillwater, Oklahoma as a passenger in Viktor Hovland’s car, listeningalong with him to death metal and other stuff he calls music. He was frank, funny, thoughtful —a great conversationalist with wide-ranging interests in politics, philosophy and, of course, the science and mechanics of the swing. He even had a carefully considered argument for why death metal is better than rock. I wasn’t buying it. But at least he had his reasons.
He does seem like an especially engaging kid.... But I'm not sure what's worse, the death metal or the Stillwater thing...
I like this story from Nick as well:
Piastowski: Debbie Blount is no doubt notable — at 62 years young, she’s playing golf for the Eagles of Reinhardt University. Back in March, we talked for over two hours, over two phone calls, about golf, life, rap and country, and she told me a joke or two, of which I could not include in the story I wrote — for censor reasons.
And their rousing coda for the year:
6. The single best shot you saw in 2021 was…Bastable: Sergio’s walk-off ace at the WGC-Dell Match Play was about as baller of a shot as they come. But for sheer magnitude, tough to beat Jon Rahm’s putts on the 71st (25 feet) and 72nd hole (18 feet) at the U.S. Open. Both were left-to-right snakes — the hardest kind of putts for a righty — and he knew he needed them for U.S. Open glory. Clutch city.
Bamberger: Charlie Woods, at the PNC on Sunday, on 17, a par-3, at the Ritz-Carlton course in Orlando. Perfect swing, a 5-iron from 170 yards, breeze in his face, flag left, water left. On the stick all the while, Charlie staring. He made the next one, from four feet. All the father had to do was watch.
Shocking that, given this panel's myopic focus on Tiger, that it took until the last question for Charlie's name to come up.
Sens: Rahm’s back-to-back putts on 17 and 18 at Torrey take the prize for me. But I’ll give the silver to Olympic gold medalist Xander Schauffele. That wedge from the fairway that he needed to save par wasn’t the most demanding shot if you stripped it of the context. But that’s the thing about big shots. You can separate them from the moment, and Schauffele came up huge.Piastowski: I’ll go with two, if that’s OK. The Bryson drive over the lake at Bay Hill (speaking of question four) — and then Lee Westwood not cutting the corner in the same pairing with DeChambeau the next day, but still celebrating like him afterward. Both were great.
Lee's game has always been lacking in certain areas, but is there a guy you'd rather have a beer with out there
Just a few more nits and to pick. A few posts back I linked to this item:
In an episode of blogging malpractice that I still regret, I let you explore that on your own, but perhaps it's not too late to remedy that. It is, after all, the estimable Brendan Porath and he makes some interesting observations:
It illustrated the tension between the pro game’s persistent thirst to broaden its tent, make a splash, live under par … with the constraints of a member-run organization sensitive to its stars' sensitivities. That sensitivity undercurrent was particularly strong this year, with renewed reports of disruptor leagues looking to exploit some top stars' feelings that they’re not getting a commensurate piece of the pie.Combined, their out-in-the-open feud made them the biggest active stars in the game. So it was no surprise to hear both of their names bandied about in reports of a Saudi-backed disruptor league offering $20 million and $30 million up front for commitments. And it was no surprise that one of the tour’s counter-measures, the Player Impact Program, or PIP, pushed this beef into a different realm. Koepka clearly leaned into it, bringing an element of competitiveness to his social-media tactics, so much so that he boasted by the end of the year that he “won the online battle.” Bryson, well, he was less surgical on social media, but the output was there, no doubt. The endpoint of this year-long tension was not a Sunday showdown with the stakes at their highest, but a processed-beef match on the Vegas strip, served with the produced elements that may be part of the alternative golf product being pitched as … entertainment … or maybe it’s competition? … by these disruptor league proposals.
I have no problem with an entertaining sideshow helping to broaden the tent, it's just that I wonder when we get to the entertaining part?
I like his "processed-beef" analogy very much, but I fear folks are ignoring how close that event is to the Premiere/Super League concept.
I've exhumed that piece because we have another take on the issue, from the previously-unknown-to-me Riley Hamel at Golfweek, who is apparently easily entertained:
The real question: Was the petty feud between the two U.S. Open champions good for the gameof golf?The short answer, yes.It brought more eyeballs. It brought drama. It then culminated with a made-for-TV match between the two in Las Vegas that ultimately ended in an old-school classroom spanking of the muscleman.Some may disagree, and that’s fine. To be honest, this answer is coming from someone who simply can’t stand anything DeChambeau does. Cupcakes on the first tee, man — really?However, anything that helps grow the game works for me, and the Brooks vs. Bryson feud had people talking who have never watched a Tour event before. It’s as simple as that.
But, inquiring minds want to know, where is the evidence that the feud grew the game? Now do we understand the evolving backlash against using GTG to rationalize just about anything?
I'm open to the concept that golf could use more feuds. It's just that the professional wrestling business model should prevail, with an obvious good guy and bad guy. A feud between two juvenile, barely literate frat boys? Not for this observer, but your mileage may vary.
Ok, one last bit of housekeeping and I'll leave you to start your week. Last week, in blogging some thoughts of Geoff's related to the evolving international environment, I included this image from his post:
However, in another instance of blogging malpractice, I neglected to include the rather interesting caption:
The earliest known golf Christmas card (1843) with a not particularly charitable message. By John C. Horsley (From Great Golf Collections of the World, Jack Dezieck Archives)
Hmmmm, really? Because I happen to remember this very interesting treatise eon that subject:
"That's Good": A History of Conceding Putts
Which makes me wonder about that 1843 passive-aggressiveness:
The phrase itself, “concede putts,” was first mentioned in the Rules of Golf in 1909. Interestingly, the USGA was strongly against it. The section Special Rules for Match Play Competitions reads, “The Rules of Golf Committee recommends that players should not concede putts to their opponents.” This was mentioned in each subsequent Rules book until 1933.At one point, conceding a putt was used as a way to play around the “stymie rule,” which was in existence until 1952. On September 1, 1920, the USGA added a provision that allowed the stymied player to concede his opponent’s next putt, and it was incorporated into the 1921 Rules of Golf: “If the opponent lay the player a stymie, the player may remove the opponent’s ball; the opponent shall then be deemed to have holed in his next stroke.”More than a decade before, the December 1909 issue of the USGA Golf Bulletin featured two articles on the practice of conceding putts. Horace F. Smith, president of the Southern Golf Association, wrote that conceding putts was newly popular among golfers attempting to show good sportsmanship:
Were they conceding putts in 1843? I'm not actually sure, but on the greens they putted back then, I wouldn't recommend conceding anything longer than a foot.
I'll catch you later in the week, as content presents.
No comments:
Post a Comment