Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Midweek Musings

The big news rocking the golf world is that your humble blogger got in his first nine holes yesterday.  Shockingly, if you'll spot me a fringe or two, I hit seven of nine greens, something I'd be ecstatic to do in June.  I had a month's worth of three-jacks, alas, improbably because the greens were kinda fast.... That problem will resolve itself quickly, as the Spring Drill & Fill program commences in 3,2,1....

And, for the amusement of Bobby D., I should have been in shorts.

Joking aside, there's actual news to cover.

The Plot Thickens - One of the good guys in our game graduated quickly from his reeducation camp, and has found a warm welcome now that he's back among right-thinking people:

Henrik Stenson has been named as the European Captain for the 2023 Ryder Cup at Marco Simone Golf and Country Club in Rome, Italy from September 25 – October 1, 2023.

The 2016 Open Champion has enjoyed an impressive Ryder Cup career, helping Europe to victory in three of five of his appearances as a player before going on to bring his experience to the role of Vice Captain in the 2020 edition of the biennial contest.

The 45 year old becomes the first Swede to be named European Captain and will be aiming to emulate the memorable European performance in the last home match at Le Golf National in Paris, France in 2018, and reclaim the Ryder Cup following victory for the United States at Whistling Straits, Wisconsin, last September.

It was Henrik's to lose, and lose it he seemingly had as he stood naked before the world clutching only a blank deposit slip.  Geoff settles some scores:

The 45-year-old former Open Champion became the 2023 European Ryder Cup Captain following a longer-than-normal process typically settled by January. But following Europe’s 19-9 loss at Whistling Straits, Lee Westwood bowed out and the five-person committee evidently felt Luke Donald would not be glib enough. Only Padraig Harrington, Thomas Bjorn, Darren Clarke, Chairman David Howell and DP World Tour Chief Keith Pelley will know how the race played out while Stenson flirted with LIV Golf Investments. That’s the front organization for noted beheader and oil price manipulator Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Stenson played in the recent PIFSIPSIA tournament and served as lead social media star.

To the outside world, he relinquished his lead at that point before rallying late. Really late. As in, last Friday at The Players. Stenson got the call from Ryder Cup director Guy Kinnings and by Tuesday had arrived in Rome for a press chat and first look at Marco Simone Golf Club.

“As we know,” said Kinnings, “Mr. Stenson also has a finally tuned, dry sense of humour, and we will be looking forward to the unique style he's going to bring to the role as he puts his own stamp on it.”

Life can be so unfair.   You behead 81 people and folks take it so out of context.... Of course there's amusement to be found, for instance in Geoff's own header:

With Stenson's Captaincy, Saudis Lose Another Key Star

Star?  I'm still befuddled by their interest in a guy whose best days are in the rearview mirror.

And this from NLU:

Choosing?  You might have noticed that, at the moment "Scary Mofo's" was posted at The Firepit Collective, those Saudi riches went poof.

I for one hold none of this against Henrik, as who among us wouldn't consider an offer of untold riches in the Autumn of our careers.  But among Geoff's anodyne quotes from Captain Stenson is this answer to a rather obvious concern:

On assurances he’ll say no to Saudi money: “The captain’s do sign a contract. He's the only one that does that. Players and vice captains don't. But the captain has an agreement and those agreements are between Ryder Cup Europe and the captain, so I'm fully committed to my role as a captain and working hard towards the result we want in Rome.”

I guess there's a hastily drafted codicil to that effect....

As noted above, Henrik is one of the funnier gents out there, and his involvement could add some wit and candor to the proceedings.  But the world refuses to stop turning, with news on two fronts.

First, Greg Norman is back with another letter, though to the best of my knowledge he doesn't call anyone Shirley:

In a letter he sent Tuesday to players and obtained by Golfweek, the Great White Shark said the
rival Saudi Arabia-backed golf league that would rival the PGA Tour still has teeth and will launch soon, and information of the proposed league’s first events will be announced Wednesday,

Norman, the CEO and commissioner of LIV Golf Investments, said “we will continue to drive this vision forward. We will not stop. We believe in our mission and will announce information about our first events tomorrow.”

LIV Golf Investments, backed by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, has already committed $300 million over 10 years to the Asian Tour. Although lacking in detail, LIV Golf Investments also has proposed a Super Golf League that would consist of 14 events with 48-player fields featuring both individual and team play.

The events would be 54 holes with no cut. Each would have a $20 million purse.

This basically confirms Eamon Lynch's reporting.  The logic seems to be to throw an event with a ginormous purse, and force Jay to deny waivers to those desiring a slice of that pie.  The hope being that said players, for the purposes of this analysis I'll arbitrarily call them Phil and Bryson, will sue their own tour.  Hey, it could work, and there's little doubt that aggressive legal actions will grow the game, which is the primary objective for sure.

We love us our Shark, because we don't need to pressure ourselves to be especially clever to trash the guy, as he voluntarily beclowns himself.  He of course couldn't help himself in vouching for the Saudis, putting his good name behind those social changes that he himself saw with his very own eyes.  Now, Sharkie, about those 81 beheadings....  if that doesn't grow the game, I simply don't know what will.

But the bigger and more ominous news (for Jay) comes from Bob Harig, formerly ESPN's golf guy, but now banished to the digital rump of Sports Illustrated:

While the PGA Tour has spent considerable time in recent weeks pushing back against a potential rival league fronted by Hall of Famer Greg Norman, the Premier Golf League – which originally presented an alternative format and huge money offers going back eight years – has quietly been working behind the scenes to garner support.

And it has gained some traction.

The reason? The 54-hole events with an individual and team component of 48 players and guaranteed money each week would come under the umbrella of PGA Tour Inc., the non-profit organization that operates the PGA Tour, along with several others, including the Korn Ferry Tour.

In a letter sent to the PGA Tour Policy Board in February and since shared with numerous players, and obtained by SI.com/Morning Read, the Premier Golf League (PGL), which operates under the banner of the World Golf Group based in London, outlines a plan that would generate significant equity value for all voting PGA Tour members, as well as those on the DP World Tour and the Korn Ferry Tour.

“This reaffirms our desire to share, equitably, the value to be generated by the Premier Golf League and to collaborate with the PGA Tour Inc. in a manner that is both consistent with its principal mission and in the best interests of its members,’’ wrote Roger Maddock, chairman of World Golf Group Ltd.

As your humble blogger has noted many times, it was Jay's great fortune that the most serious threat came from the noxious Saudis, from which most folks recoiled in disgust (Phil's sensitivity to disgust remains an open question, though with enough zeros involves he's at least willing to suspend it).

But I think you'll agree that this is a delicious level of specificity:

As outlined in the letter, as a new joint venture corporation, Premier Golf League Inc. would issue shares equal to 50 percent to PGA Tour players, 7.5 percent to the Korn Ferry players, 2.5 percent to DP World Tour players, 5 percent to the Tour’s commercial partners, 2.5 percent to PGL’s directors (which could include PGA Tour commissioner Jay Monahan), 7.5 percent to a charitable foundation (to benefit the amateur game) and 25 percent to the World Golf Group.

Before you reject it out of hand, Jay, we've set aside a little slice for your own fine self.

The reason for that picture above is that Rory becomes a key player, both because he's now on the PGA Tour Policy Board, but also because of his prior comments on such matters:

In December, Rory McIlroy, who recently became a member of the PGA Tour Policy Board after being part of the Player Advisory Council, said in an interview with the "No Laying Up" Podcast that he believed it was his duty to present the PGL plan to the membership.

“In my role as PAC chairman and now on the Policy Board, I have to think of those guys that are down at the bottom, right?’’ McIlroy said. “So then, going on to PGL and you have Andy Gardiner on here (on a previous podcast), saying, well I think I can create $5 billion worth of equity for the layers and distribute that among the 210 (members), so I’m sort of adding that up in my mind and that’s like $20 million each. I’m like again, I’m not doing a good job for the players if I don’t bring that to the attention of the Tour and be like ... just sit down and listen to this guy, do something.

“Yes, OK, I get the business model that the PGA Tour is currently under, Andy said 'hamstrung,' in terms of ... this is just sort of what they can do and they’re doing their best with what they can, and I agree that they’re doing a wonderful job within the structure they’re in because that was what was created before Jay (Monahan) took charge. You know it is what it is. But if someone comes along and says I think I can create this amount of revenue and distribute it amongst every player, you have to listen to that, right? Because again, that’s my responsibility to all the players who voted me into this position.’’

There's no shortage of wording to the effect that this is to be done in cooperation with the PGA Tour (and its members), though last I heard we were still governed vy the time-space continuum.  That's why this seems a tad unrealistic:

But what about the players who are not part of the PGL, which would have 48 players comprised of 12 four-mean teams with the potential for a 13th team each week picked by fans?

Those not part of the PGL events would compete in regular PGA Tour events in other weeks, a schedule that would, based on the current calendar, mean approximately 30 events, with the FedEx Cup structure in place. Those who compete in the 18 PGL events would not be prohibited from playing tournaments in other weeks.

The key number for me being the eighteen events, which at least has the benefit of being a golfy number.

Jay already suffers the indignity of abiding those four majors that he does not control.  Sure, adding another 18, presumably in the height of the season, what's there not to like from his perspective, except everything.  The PGL may use all sorts of words about cooperation, but I'm going way out on a limb and predicting that Jay's ambition is not to be a feeder tour for a bunch of limeys.

Now, where Jay does have a problem, is with the Fall portion of his schedule, and that would seem to me to be a rather obvious point of entry for an upstart.  It's tough trade, as you'll not get network coverage in the states, so you better have a plan to make it up elsewhere, but this strikes me as a complete non-starter.

And with Phil in an undisclosed location and Henrik contractually unavailable, it smells like Bryson time.

Speaking of Phil, I just can't see how I don't include this bit:

World Golf Group states it believes the PGL will generate $10 billion of equity value by 2030, which would equate to $20 million per PGA Tour voting member and $3 million per Korn Ferry member.

In addition, the proposal includes a cash advance on future equity value of $460 million. In simple terms, each of 200 voting members of the PGA Tour would receive $2 million upon the launch of the PGL, with 200 Korn Ferry members each getting $300,000.

Everyone gets $2 million?  Corn Fairy stiffs get paid?  Geez, they just lost Phil due to what I presume he would call "Obnoxious generosity."

Players Leftovers - Some truly odd leftovers about the fun week at Sawgrass.  First, in back-to-back weeks we saw players dealing with extremely difficult conditions and set-ups, much to your humble blogger's enjoyment.  But if you think these events were something new or even of record nature, Eamon Lynch kindly requests that you hold his beer:

Thanks, Eamon, that's just a great reminder.

Next is this browser tab, a provocative piece from curmudgeonly Scot John Huggan,  that needs closing:

HUGGAN: SAWGRASS’ FINISH DOESN’T LIVE UP TO THE HYPE

Do tell.

Not for the first time, that thought came to mind as I watched a Golf Channel preview show for this week’s Players Championship. As part of the discussion, panellist Mark Rolfing announced that the finish at TPC Sawgrass provides “the best theatre in golf.”

Aye, right Mark.

Quite apart from the fact that this resident of far-off Hawaii has apparently never been to the Old Course at St. Andrews, his contention requires deeper definition. Yes, the closing holes at the Players have produced much drama over the years, but that “entertainment” has invariably been – at least in a golfing sense – more akin to a knock-about, “cream pie in the face” Christmas pantomime than thought-provokingly Shakespearean.

We do Shakespearean here at Unplayable Lies.  For instance, there's a certain former U.S. Open champion known on these pages as, "Alas, Poor Furyk."  Not what you meant, John?

Now, he makes a fair point about No. 18's tee shot:

Sawgrass has the sort of green complexes that would allow the elimination of deep rough and create some angles. Right now, scoring is difficult from the middle of just about every fairway, because that isn’t necessarily the best place to be on any given hole. So it isn’t the rough that makes the course so difficult, it is missing the greens in the wrong spots.

The rough thing is especially noticeable on the 18th. While there is no doubt that the tee-shot there is the ultimate test of execution, the long grass on the right-hand side is classic over-kill. In itself, it’s fine. But it does seem a bit like a double punishment for the guy who hits away from the water on the left. Being behind trees is enough. Plus, if there were no rough, the ambitious recovery shot would come into play. Right now, players basically have to chip-out every time. But wouldn’t it be fun to watch guys trying to cut balls round trees, out over the water and back onto the green? Okay, the hole might be slightly easier, but it would also be a whole lot more interesting to watch.

Obviously John wrote this before the tourney, making it interesting in hindsight.  because that rough contributed to Cameron Smith (not to mention Keegan Bradley) chopping out (which is boring) into the water (which suddenly got very interesting).

Similarly, any other time I'd be highly sympathetic to this take on the island green:

Then there is the notorious par-3 17th. You know, the so-called “island” green that isn’t actually an island? Yes, that one.

This cracks me up, how so many folks think it clever to make the point that it's not an island.   Gee, unless you want to play automatic two-putts, you need a way for the players to get to the green.  I know, we could boat them over like they do at  Coeur D'alene, otherwise get over yourself, John.

Even non-golfers tune in to watch what happens on this (in)famous hole, although I suspect most are not so secretly hoping for the golfing equivalent of a car crash. Which is my point. The penalty for just missing the target is brutal and surely too much. On all great holes, hitting good shots means good things will happen. But on the 17th that is true only some of the time. Solid shots go in the water there. Is that really the scenario we want to see so close to the end of such a prestigious tournament?

Plus, in terms of actual shot making, the 17th is actually inherently dull. Every player, no matter his ability or preferred ball-flight, stands on that tee and tries to hit essentially the same shot. There’s not a lot of imagination required. But there is some luck. Two balls landing maybe a foot apart can lead to a birdie and a double-bogey. The line is that fine.

So yes, while the 17th is “great theatre” for those wishing to witness disaster rather than subtlety or skill, the hole is a bad fit. The difference between good and bad is too many shots. We’ve seen too many guys – having played great tournaments for 70-holes – come completely unravelled there. One bad shot that would normally lead to a bogey too often produces a double or triple. That is hardly appropriate in the circumstances and, at least to my high-minded eyes, cheapens the event.

Bug, feature.

But I'd be curious as to John's thoughts after this installment.  I would argue that watching them play this hole in the difficult conditions, most notably Saturday, was fascinating.  They certainly didn't all play the same shot and, more importantly, we saw the challenge unravel more finely homed professional golf swings than we see in a decade.  For God's sake, John, they were hitting hosel rockets, and we don't see that every day.

Dylan Dethier's aptly named Monday Finish column had a couple of interesting bits.  First, apparently he's a reader of this fine blog, though I'm a bit miffed he didn't throw me a link:

By now you’ve seen the disputed drop from No. 16 on Monday. Daniel Berger hit a high cut that drifted into the right water and then was looking to drop up near the green, where he alleged that it crossed into the hazard. His playing partners Joel Dahmen and Viktor Hovland seemed less certain. There’s a complete breakdown here but what I’m intrigued by, a day later, is that people can look at the same shot tracker screenshot and conclude wildly different things about where the ball would have entered the penalty area.

Here’s that screenshot:


In the online commenter world I feel like I saw more people arguing that this validated Berger’s version of events. I feel the opposite way! While this agrees with Berger’s assertion that his ball started at the left side of the green, it cut right pretty quickly. Check out the shadow on the ground; that thing is headed towards the water much sooner than Berger’s attempted drop area.

But my enduring takeaway is that everyone kind of…did their job? If Daniel Berger firmly believed that he was getting hosed out of 80 yards, he had every right to argue that point. And credit to Viktor Hovland and Joel Dahmen to sticking up for the field and the line they thought was correct. In the end the spot where he dropped looks, from my 3D estimations, to be about right. (If pressed on the issue I’d guess Berger got maybe 15 yards further up than he should have but definitely within the margin of reasonable error.)

Which sounds exactly like my thoughts yesterday.  Everyone played their role appropriately.

But the misfire comes with this entry from Dylan's list of winners:

Gold Boy’s rise to stardom

At first you hated him. Then you made fun of him. I can see you, in your living room, wondering what the point of Gold Boy even was. Surely that money could have been better spent…anywhere else?

But now? I suspect you might be starting to love him. And if he didn’t return for next year’s Players broadcast, you might even miss him. I think…

Nope.  Not now, not ever....

But John Huggan, call your office, because you'll love this proposed modification to No. 17, offering an alternative way to play the hole:

So, a putting path to the green, life imitates art.  Years ago they did a contest at Sawgrass to crown the world's worst avid golfer.  The winner, after several ill-fated attempts to land a ball on the green, ultimately got there by putting the ball along the astroturf walking path.  

This comment is funny as well:

Heck, with ten putts on the back nine, I'd give it to him.

Nice Guys Finish -  This story is a week old, but resonates with your humble blogger for two reasons:

The USGA announced Wednesday that Mike McCoy has been named the U.S. captain for the 2023 match at The Old Course at St. Andrews (Sept. 2-3) while Nathan Smith will lead the Americans in 2025 at Cypress Point (Sept. 6-7). Both players are former Walker Cuppers and past champions of the U.S. Mid-Amateur, with Smith competing on three Walker Cup teams and winning four Mid-Am titles.

“Both Mike and Nathan have long, exceptional histories with the USGA and outstanding amateur golf resumes,” USGA president Stu Francis said in a release. “Given the historic nature of the next two matches being staged at St. Andrews and Cypress Point, we wanted to give both of them the time to enjoy this leadership opportunity and plan their next few years accordingly. We congratulate each of them on an honor well deserved and look forward to watching them lead two talented USA Teams.”

So, reason No. One.  I'm like a schoolgirl with her first crush, but the next two Walker Cups will be at The Old Course and friggin' Cypress Point.  I can't decide which is the more exciting.

The Old Course is only marginally able to withstand the onslaught of the modern game, requiring tees to be placed on adjoining courses and praying for wind.  This year's Open seems especially fraught with peril, as should the wind be down and the course soft, we could see the first 59 in major championship history.  Heck, we could see a 56...

But there is no course that's a better fit for match play, as the fact that there's 4-5 drivable Par-4 matters not at all.  It's the most interesting golf course on the planet, but much of that is lost in medal play, and your humble blogger is giddy at the prospect.

In fact, deep in recessed of my Id I harbor an erotic fantasy that has seldom seen the light of day.  To wit, that Keith Pelley would have the cujones to take a Ryder Cup to The Old Course.  I know, what I am thinking, why go to timeless test of golf with six centuries of history, when you can instead go to The Belfry, Marco Simone and Celtic Manor.  Sheesh, what was I thinking?

But then, Cypress Point.  Again a venue far too short for today's game, but appropriately dubbed The Sistine Chapel of Golf by Sandy Tatum.  That's great enough, but about that captain....

In 2014, former caddie client Kent St. Charles made it through Local Qualifying for the U.S. Open, and we had the following conversation a few days before Sectionals at Old Oaks-Century:

ME: Are you all set for Monday?

KENT: Yes, I start at Century and finish at Old Oaks.

ME: Great.  Have you seen your pairing?

KENT: Yeah, I'm playing with some amateur by the name of Nathan.

ME: Nathan?  You're not by any chance paying with Nathan Smith?

KENT: Yeah, I think that's his name.  You know him?

ME: You lucky bastard!

Sure enough:

That's Kent and Nathan finishing, with Kent's friend Kyle Munoz handling the lopping duties that day, since 26 holes is a bit much for your humble blogger.

Obviously a storied amateur career for Nathan, including playing in a gaggle of Masters.  But also the nicest guy you'd want to meet.  Employee No. 2 and were with them for their last nine holes, but I didn't introduce myself until the golf was finished (not that either was sniffing relevance).  When I did say hello, I explained to Smith that I'm enough of golf geek to know who he is and that I was thrilled for my friend Kent's pairing with him.  Do you know how this silly man responded?  He told me that he was thrilled to be paired with Kent.  Sure he was lying through his teeth, but what a sweet, generous lie.  And we seem well past a pint where such courtesies are on offer.

So I'm ecstatic for Nathan, as well as that we get to see Cypress Point up close.  I'm also a lucky bastard in that I've played it twice, but both were in a galaxy far, far away (the 1980's, to be specific.

That's it for today, kids.  Catch you at the turn.


 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)