Friday, March 18, 2022

Late-Week Lamentations

There's a couple of stories that demand attention, notwithstanding a 10:00 a.m. call on my calendar, one that requires a bit of preparation.  We'll dive in, maintain our typically laser-like focus, then clean up any resulting messes at a later time.  So, yanno, just a normal day here at Unplayable Lies.

It's On! - On the calendar, for now, that is, as it appears in the Middle East there's little value in burning the money for heat:

Greg Norman is pushing ahead with his rival golf league, announcing Wednesday the launch with an eight-tournament schedule that will begin in June and offer $25 million purses per event.

The league will be called the LIV Golf Invitational Series.

The concept that has been floating around for months and caused considerable disruption on the PGA Tour will see 54-hole events with no cuts, shotgun starts and purses that will pay $20 million for the individual portion, $5 million for the team portion, and a season-ending event that will have a $30 million purse.

In all, LIV Golf Investments, of which Norman is the CEO, is committing $400 million to launch the league with $250 million in prize money.

Still to be determined is who will participate.

Only those willing to swear fealty to Mohammad bin Salman, as well as to publicly demonstrate their obnoxious greed.  

So, the schedule:

  • June 9-11: Centurion Golf Club – London
  • July 1-3: Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club – Portland
  • July 29-31: Trump National Golf Club Bedminster – New Jersey
  • Sept 2-4: The International – Boston
  • Sept 16-18: Rich Harvest Farms – Chicago
  • Oct 7-9: Stonehill Golf Club – Bangkok
  • Oct 14-16: Royal Greens Golf Club – Jeddah
  • Oct 28-30: Team Championship

 So, Goat Hill was unavailable?  hey, we haven't had a Dan Jenkins shoutout in a while...

I can't find it right now, but Alan Shipnuck had a tweet up respecting the wisdom in choosing locales that the PGA Tour has dissed, which is certainly a hot take from a guy at the center of the vortex.

He's certainly right that the PGA's forced march out of NYC, Boston and Chicago will amuse historians, though I'm pretty sure that Jay feels that Portland and Greg Norman are an unusually good fit.  Last it made golf news, the LPGA event in The Rose City had to be relocated due to the homeless encampment in that club's parking lot.  Whether that's a bug or a feature I'll leave to the reader.

I'm with this guy on that subject:

That might strike you as needlessly personal, but to the best of my knowledge Kokrak is the only guy actually  sponsored by the Saudis.... 

The first thing you'll notice is that the schedule is Fall-heavy, perhaps partly a function of scheduling on the fly, but also seemingly focused on the weaker portion of the Tour's  dance card.  Of course, it's weaker for a reason, and that reason is mostly attributed (which is different than attributable) to the monolith that goes by the "NFL" acronym.  

The next interesting bit is to note that that first event will be up against the RBC Canadian Open, but finishing on the Saturday.  It's in London so will finish early Saturday in Brookline, MA, the significance being that any player so qualified will be headed to the U.S. Open starting the following Thursday.

The second event is the week of the John Deere, so there go all hopes of luring Jordan Spieth.... OK, that was settling an Unplayable Lies grudge from 2015, so feel free to ignore.  But that event is two weeks before The Open Championship, but I can't help but think that Gregg is dyslexic and plopped those two on the wrong continents.

The third event will compete with the Rocket Mortgage Classic in Detroit, providing yet another schadenfreudaliscious morsel.  After Phil, the player seemingly most tempted by the bonecutters was our Bryson, who just happens to be sponsored by...wait for it, Rocket Mortgage.  Of course, petulant Bryson couldn't be bothered giving the time of the day to the press at the 2021 edition, so sponsor-abuse is a very real thing.

Geoff had a 'graph on this in his latest Quad:

Greg Norman says there are no requirements to play a set number of the eight events on the “beta” “start-up” tour. The venues announced are all second rate, but the dirty purse money is enormous. Norman said many other lame things in a podcast where the hosts seemed to really like his ideas and not have a single qualm about the money source. It’s linked below in the Listens department. The Fried Egg team analyzed the rollout in a far more rational manner.

No, there couldn't be, could there?  What I want to ask is whether there's a maximum handicap allowed?  Asking for a friend....

On the venues, there was this in addition to that tweet above:

Andy: While they nailed the city choices, the golf courses leave a lot to be desired. Rich Harvest Farms camped in Golf Digest’s top 100 for a number of years but it wasn’t because of the golf course. It’s a dumpster fire, to put it lightly. I think one of the stronger appeals for the SGL/PGL model was the idea that smaller fields of top players might be able to open doors to some courses we would not normally see host PGA Tour events. While this schedule does this, it’s going in the opposite direction! This is a list of courses that I have no interest in playing myself, let alone watching Jason Kokrak saunter about for three days. I suppose I should not be surprised that LIV has bad golf course architecture tastes when Greg Norman is captaining the ship.

C'mon, Andy, tell us what you really think.

This last question requires a bigger boat:

What’s the biggest unanswered question for you surrounding LIV’s plan?

Ummmm, all of them.

Andy: Who is playing in these tournaments? Are we going to get Asian Tour fields + Phil and Kokrak? I imagine there are a few players who will still make the jump. The guaranteed money is going to overwhelm a few players’ moral standards.

Garrett: To what extent will LIV try to obscure its connection to Saudi Arabia? The branding of the “LIV Golf Invitational” suggests a move in this direction and an attempt, feeble as it may be, to assuage players’ fears of a Phil Mickelson-style PR fallout.

Brendan: I remain extremely fascinated by the question of who will broadcast this. A quick check with some media and TV exec types yielded a near consensus that the major networks and ESPN are not options. Amazon seems unlikely given the Saudis past hack of Jeff Bezos’s phone, among other reasons. I proposed a DAZN-type streamer, but was quickly reminded that specific outlet is owned by a Russian oligarch with current issues that would make the LIV baggage seem small. But that type of streamer feels like the direction this would have to go. Do the Saudis simply fund and start-up some OTT operation? There just aren’t many options out there, but that may be irrelevant as some big rights-fee ROI is not the primary goal here, sportswashing is. As one producer said, “Good luck to them. It’s pretty tough building a first class production from scratch as Fox learned at Chambers Bay.”

Obviously the purpose of this schedule is to put the ball in Jay's court and to force him to deny waivers to PGA Tour members.  We've seen a healthy back-and-forth over some of the legal issues involved with a lifetime ban, but this seems a new front in the war.  I have trouble imagining that Jay can't legally protect his events, but my law degree remains pending.  

It may also be that this is actually helpful to Jay, in that those Brits trying to revive the original PGL concept, the one without blood money, are being oxygen deprived by the Saudis.  That remains to me the bigger threat to Jay...

But Brandan's focus on the broadcasting of these events to me ignores the bigger issue of the production of said broadcast, an extremely expensive and logistically-challenging process.  Obvious the Saudis burn untold millions on this and not think twice, but can you stand up a broadcast team in 120 days even on an unlimited budget?   

This should be good fun to watch.  Exit question: Are the Saudis stupid enough to let Greg Norman handle to analyst duties on their broadcasts, or are they still psychologically scarred from Chambers Bay like the rest of us?

There's one additional aspect to this that I want to note, mostly because it kind of snuck up on your humble blogger.  When the PGA Tour bailed out the Euro Tour, we all of course realized that the pecking order of world tours was thereby calcified.  Even so, when I heard Paul McGinley on Golf Channel say recently that that deal obviously solidified the U.S. Tour as the world's premiere golf tour, it made me sit up in my chair.  

As covered here and elsewhere, the Brits have put an offering package on the table, and that offer has been reportedly taken to the PGA Tour's Board by Rory McIlroy.  It's complicated, but there's a signing bonus paid directly to the various tours' members, and therein lies a telling detail:

I saw this first on a per player basis, but the significance went over my head initially:

The PGL proposal is also notable because, unlike the SGL, it is not just about the rich getting richer; the PGL would give ownership stakes to members of the PGA, Korn Ferry, and DP World tours. The PGL would allocate 100 million shares, with a prospective value of $10 billion. PGA Tour members would get 50 percent of the shares; 7.5 percent would go to Korn Ferry members, and DP World Tour members would get 2.5 percent. The breakdown of how the shares would be distributed is below.

I instinctively understood that Keith Pelley would now take marching orders from Jay Monahan, that the Euro Tour was, here's those words again, swearing fealty to the PGA Tour.  What I failed to appreciate was that they were agreeing additionally to be subservient to the PGA Tour's feeder tour!  

Since the days of Seve (and even before), we've seen the Euro Tour struggle to keep their members at home, losing them to the riches (and competition) of the PGA Tour.  In our Brave New World, they will now lose their homegrown talent to a developmental tour.  Am I the only one that finds this incredibly sad?

What's left in Keith Pelley's quiver except the Ryder Cup?

OK, I lied.  It's Greg Norman so it's a target-rich environment.  I want to focus for a sec on the team aspect of Norman's proposal, an undeveloped subject because there's never been any meat on those bones.  Norman went on the Sub-Par podcast and waxes philosophic on team play:

There’s so much going on here it’s head-spinning. Let’s start with the concept — 54 holes, team
play and individual play, 48 golfers — and how Norman and his team came up with it. Norman attended his first Ryder Cup last year at Whistling Straits, where he was doing radio commentary.

“I’ve never seen a team event with energy like that, and that was a gobsmack moment,” Norman, a native Australian who has lived in South Florida for decades, said Wednesday from a sleek, sun-drenched office in a high- rise in West Palm Beach.

Norman’s remarks here have been lightly edited and reordered for clarity.

“To see the interactions of players who weren’t playing on the first tee, engaging with the fans? Man, it put goosebumps on me and I’m not even American or European. I saw the value of what team sport does, the camaraderie of the players, how they want to represent their team or their country or their playing partner that given day. It was a moment. I was really into it from an emotional standpoint, from a player standpoint.

“So for me, and Sean [Bratches, a LIV Golf executive], we both got hit in the forehead with this massive energy: ‘Look at the fans, this is what they want! Individual as well as team [competitions]’. And that’s what we’re having right here, with LIV Golf.”

Is your BS meter in the red zone?  He wants to wrap himself in the Ryder Cup, ignoring that his team event will be nothing like the Ryder Cup.  I'll speak slowly, Greg, so there's an outside chance that you can follow, but the Ryder Cup is Team Match Play.  Your event will have to be stroke team play, which is quite a different thing and, amusingly, you won't have other players on the first tee because, yanno, shotgun start.

But wait, there's more!  Can you say comically disingenuous?  I thought you could.  Buried in a golf.com primer is this totally awesome detail:

2. A (weekly) player draft

LIV Golf’s proposed setup is meant to keep the series in a state of constant flux, meaning that teams will not remain the same for more than one week at a time. Rather, each of the 12 team captains will draft a new team from the pool of available players before every tournament.

Greg Norman is so comically out-of-touch that he seems to think we'll develop Ryder Cup-level passions over teams of interchangeable Tour pros that change each and every week.  

Chicks Hardest Hit - Very much a developing story, but the USGA/R&A have issued the following document:

This seems to be what passes for a mission statement:


 And this is likely the key bit:

Areas of Interest

1 - Potential changes to the testing methods for golf balls

Evaluate the effect of increasing the clubhead speed used to determine conformance to the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) to at least 125 mph and to use optimized launch angle and spin parameters (that are specific to each ball tested). In conjunction with the potential new test conditions for the ODS, the Initial Velocity Test may be modified or eliminated to provide the opportunity for innovation for shorter hitters. These potential changes would apply to balls used at all levels of the game.

2 - Model Local Rules – Club performance

Investigate the impact of a reduction of the allowable spring-like effect and moment of inertia in drivers. The governing bodies are considering these topics within the context of Model Local Rules that could be utilized for competitions involving the highest level of elite golfers. There is also interest in considering whether the adoption of these potential Model Local Rules could also allow the elimination of the MOI limit for recreational golfers, which could facilitate greater innovation and provide modest distance increases at this level of the game.

Golf’s stakeholders can provide feedback and research on these topics by Sept. 2, 2022.

It seems borderline Orwellian (and that guy is certainly having his time in the sun these days) to call it a change in the testing methodology, when what is obviously being considered is a change in the, you know, ball.

Geoff has thankfully penned a Quad post that's not paywalled, and here are his points on the ball-related issues:

  • Spin parameters? “Based on comments received in response to the 1 February 2021 announcement, The R&A and the USGA will investigate incorporation of a golf ball’s spin properties in determining these bounds.” Depending on how these are carried out, some golf balls in use today at the Tour level by top players could no longer be conforming.
  • Ball innovation for the rest? An expressed openness to eliminating the Initial Velocity test on golf balls. This could benefit more golfers by allowing for a softer ball that still flies as far. Manufacturers have reportedly indicated the “IV” test limits innovation for the average player.

 To me, it's that middle bit that is most intriguing, as Geoff alludes to in this earlier bit:

The ideas floated in Wednesday’s joint announcement could reduce the more absurd carry distances through testing and emphasizing a better ball strike. Unknown is how much more carefully players might swing under the possible changes and therefore how much distance might be lost by the world’s best. No one is willing to put a number on it until all proposals have been decided.

My frustration has long been that the focus has been only on distance, mostly ignoring the dramatically lower spin of modern balls and clubs.  This logically allows players to maximize clubhead speed and distance while mitigating the effect of the spin resulting from mishits, admittedly a simplistic framing of the issue since the lower spin itself increases distance.

But folks have been making "slippery slope" arguments on this subject, the key features of said slopes being their, well, slipperiness:

  • Different driver faces for the best? Arguably the most aggressive proposal involves restricting the driver’s “Moment of Inertia” under the banner of a Model Local Rule, a.k.a. optional bifurcation similar to “MLR’s” for green reading materials and 46-inch drivers. In this instance, the MOI might be altered to “enhance the reward of a central impact” in an effort to reward refined ballstriking.
  • Reduction in the allowable spring-like effect in drivers? In hinting at a reduction of the current Pendulum Test tolerance from 18 microseconds to 6 microseconds, it remains to be seen how much this would impact distance.
  • Different driver faces for the rest? An openness to removing MOI limits in clubs made for recreational golfers.

I'm instinctively appalled at this, as golf's difficulty is an integral part of its appeal.   The existential joy experienced when we find the sweet spot cannot be separated from the inherent difficulty of the game, and I would a deep breath before we sever that connection any further.  Of course, and I think Popeye said it best, I Yam what I yam, a single digit handicap, good but not club championship good amateur golfer, but I really want to throw a caution flag here.

I know there's a world of 30-handicappers and I come in peace to those players, but maddening challenge of our game is something we should hold onto zealously.  Whereas I feel the professional game has jumped the shark and the primacy of ball-striking skill needs, to some extent to be returned to the elite game.  Where exactly to draw that line and the extent referenced above are to me the areas we need to be discussing extensively.

So, this to me is a threshold moment, the exact point at which I start to believe that our governing bodies might actually be prepared to do something.  It is therefore the exact moment when a cold chill runs though my exoskeleton and my thoughts turn to the existential dread of, "Guys, don't screw this up!."

I'm going to leave you with this Luke Kerr-Dineen primer on this subject, mostly because he has reviewed the USGA/R&A documents and come to a different conclusion, that distance gains are moderating and that, accordingly, no action is required.  I'm ostly going to leave you to review it on your own, but this chart seems to be the key bit:


Here's his brief explainer:

As the USGA and R&A outline in one area, the average driving distance did indeed increase steadily until 2003, due to a few obvious technological factors: Players transitioning away from wooden driver heads, titanium drivers getting larger, the golf ball getting more advanced. But since 2003, that distance increase has flattened. Distance gains were negligible between 2003 and about 2014, and has started increasing again in recent years. In all, in the nearly 20 years since 2003, we’ve seen an average increase across all pro tours of between 1.9 percent and 4.3 percent.

Obviously those huge gains right after 2000 reflect the introduction of the Pro-V1 and other solid core balls, as well as the huge expansion of driver head sizes and other club technological innovations.  Luke's point would seem to be that we've reached the end of that innovation cycle, and that there's not much more in distance gains that can we wrung from drivers the size of frying pans.

There's certainly a point to made there, but perhaps not a dispositive point.  Folks make a ig deal out of recent gains coming from sources other than the equipment, which I find interesting (Track Man is quite the thing for sure), though I'm unclear as to whether that's relevant if it de-skills our game.

For instance, have baseball players not employed similar technologies and have they not gotten stronger over the years?  Yet MLB continues to play in Fenway and Wrigley, whereas Merion and Cypress Point are historical anachronisms?  Curious, no?

The other aspect in play is that I simply don't believe their numbers, mostly because they seem incompatible with my lyin' eyes  I've long harbored a suspicion that the increasing use of 3-woods and irons of tees has been buried in their aggregate numbers, which made complete sense to me when I thought then entire project was designed to allowed them to do nothing.  Now that they seem inclined to roll things back?  Developing, as the kids are wont to say.

I'll need to release you at this juncture, though we will be frequently returning to this subject.  have a great weekend.

Posted by at No comments:

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:

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Monday Finish

An extremely late arrival at the keyboard, but I sorta, half-heartedly promised to wrap it today.  The delay was unfortunately not result of life-forms in my lap, I just slept later than I have since the Carter administration.  Appropriate, no, since on a global basis we seem committed to reliving those Carter years....

All I can say is, that was really fun!  I know folks are taking their shots at it, I'll add a couple of my own, but your humble blogger found it unbelievably entertaining.  I also think there's an important lesson to be drawn from the week, and I'll likely beat you over the head with that a few times.  Shall we dive in?

While Geoff's Quad post is paywalled, he includes a generous tease, with which I'll lead:

It started off with such promise.

I think it was a month ago when Commissioner Jay Monahan confidently took back the leverage,
put the ball in Phil Mickelson’s court, and set the stage for fans to focus on the 2022 Players Championship.

If only the week could have ended then.

Draw a line through this one if you’re looking for a harbinger in a year the men’s game has a Masters approaching and stellar venues ahead. Send extra beer to the maintenance facility for Jeff Potts and crew. Salute Cameron Smith for winning and Anirban Lahiri for hanging in.

A harbinger of what, exactly?   To me it was a gloriously chaotic week, one that tested players in unusual ways.  We'll talk about that leaderboard, but people seem to forget it's an outdoor game over which the authorities have limited control.

That’s the best way to remember a dealt a heaping mix of rain, wind and cold on the worst of all
possible days: Thursday and Friday.

Even Monday’s not-forecasted final round downpour merely confirmed the jinx status for this Players. The radar when skies opened up for ten minutes on the leaders:

The high-rough setup reinforced the tendency of a March Players to not tell us much about Masters form. Advocates for more tall stuff to slow down distance won’t want to look at Smith’s stats. Still, we’ll start with the worthy winner, then get to other stuff like the move from May, player notes, the Gold Man debacle and TV notes.

First of all, not by any stretch the worst possible days, because your humble blogger was on an airplane on Thursday and busy on Friday....  What, it's not all about me?  I might need a second opinion on that.

Secondly, I wish I could find a similar weather map from a Thursday tweet.  There was a 300-mile band of nasty weather over Jacksonville, and it was the only bad weather over the entire lower 48.  So, yeah, localized to the wazoo....

I mostly agree with Geoff about the rough, although that inevitably entails a discussion of how to keeps the guys from shooting 57's, perhaps best left to another time.  I'll just note the early wave on Thursday, who played in optimal scoring conditions, wherein no one went lower than -6.  

Shall we sample from the Tour Confidential panel?  Sorry, that was rhetorical...

1. After five days of stop-and-start golf at rain-soaked, windblown TPC Sawgrass, Cameron Smith finally prevailed at the Players Championship, closing out his career-biggest win with a gutsy tee shot to four feet on the watery par-3 17th hole followed by a shaky bogey on the par-4 closer. What jumps out at you about how Smith took down what is the strongest field in golf?

Michael Bamberger: I knew he was good but never appreciated him at close range before. Love the way he goes about his business, the no-fuss decisiveness, the rhythm with every club, most especially putter.

Zephyr Melton: The oldest cliche in golf says “Drive for show, putt for dough,” and today, Smith proved it to be true. His performance on the greens was so impressive all day, and he closed it out with eight one-putts over his final nine holes. Putt for dough indeed ($3.6 million, to be exact).

Alan Bastable: Those last three holes will stick with me, in particular the sniped tee shot at 16 (par), the stuffed (but blocked) tee shot at 17 (birdie) and the unfathomable punch-out water ball on 18 (bogey). It wasn’t exactly a slam-the-door finish, but then again, he made just about every putt of consequence. Guy is a ruthless assassin on the greens.

Josh Sens: Putting has always been Smith’s strength and it was again this week. But you don’t win an event like this without a tough mindset. Smith showed that. That tee shot on 17 was pushed, for sure, but he was still playing an aggressive line. And then he pulls driver on 18 when he could have easily played a safer shot. Lots of confidence and swagger. I’d expect no less from a man bold enough to wear that mullet and ‘stache.

Dylan Dethier: The best putters in the world aren’t necessarily on the PGA Tour, but once you narrow down golfers based on elite ball striking ability (the true determinant of Tour pros) then the best and hottest putters will dominate. This week Cameron Smith was both an elite irons players and whatever is better than elite with his putter. He set the record for strokes gained putting at TPC Sawgrass while also ranking fifth in the field approaching the green. That more than offset an uneven performance with his driver. This is all a long way of saying that Smith blew my mind with his Sunday putting performance and I couldn’t believe where he hit his tee shot on No. 17.

​​James Colgan: What jumps out to me is how bold it was. Smith never backed down from a shot — including the ones he definitely should have backed down from (17, 18 tee). I’m not sure if that makes him a genius or just very lucky, but I was impressed by his fearlessness.

OK, you say potato....wait, wrong blog.

You say confidence and swag, I say rank stupidity.... Pulling driver on No. 18 with three-shot lead is about as idiotic as one can imagine.  There's just no way that shot is not pushed, especially after the smother-hook on No. 16.  Did he not have a caddie?  Just look at the golf hole and see how much room he has for an iron or hybrid, versus threading the needle with the big boy.  Lahiri had not putted on No. 17 when Smith teed off on No. 18, but the only way he can lose is if he makes a six.  Which club off the tee does he maximize his chances of making six?  The question answers itself...

But, Dylan, where do you think the best putters in the world are found?  Back to Geoff:

🔥 Cameron Smith - A 71st hole birdie was his tenth of the round. Smith said “he would be lying” if he didn’t admit he pushed the tee shot, then saved bogey at the 18th for his biggest victory. His putts per round: 27-23-27-23. Smith finished the week first in strokes gained putting picking up 11.52 strokes on the field. High rough advocates to reward accuracy? Smith finished 68th of 70 players in strokes gained off the tee, losing -5.189 strokes to the field. Smith was a 22-1 favorite for the Masters prior to the start of the Players. He’s bound to move up given the T2 and T10 in his last two trips up Magnolia Lane.

He averaged 25 putts per 18!  And he needed every single one of them.... Yes, of course he pushed the tee shot on No.17, but let's not forget that he also pured it.  Hold that thought....

Now let's get to that teachable moment I referenced above:

2. The top end of the leaderboard was notable for its lack of star power; a host of big names — Collin Morikawa, Patrick Cantlay and Jordan Spieth among them — didn’t even make the cut. Was the surprising leaderboard more a result of the challenging, uneven conditions or merely the big guns not bringing their best stuff?

Melton: Golfers are creatures of habit, and this week’s routine was anything but ordinary. I’m willing to chalk it up to the stop-and-start nature of the event, combined with brutal conditions when they actually did get to play.

Sens: A combo, I’d say. The draw was huge this week, obviously. But as Justin Thomas showed us, it was possible to slog through the brutal weather if you were at your absolute best. Spieth, to cite one example, looked like he was searching for something that might have been missing even in good weather. Conditions were nasty. But I doubt any of those guys who missed the cut would blame the weather alone for how they finished.

Dethier: I think they actually would have a fair case to blame the weather. The very worst micro-wave (fun term!) to be in was essentially playing No. 17 at the very beginning of play on Saturday. That meant Brooks Koepka, Xander Schauffele and Scottie Scheffler in one group; it meant Collin Morikawa, Rory McIlroy and Justin Thomas in the next. Koepka, Schauffele and Morikawa missed the cut, while McIlroy and Scheffler made it on the number. We can praise Thomas’ superhuman efforts while also acknowledge his compatriots got the absolute worst of the weather.

Bamberger: More than I can ever remember before at Sawgrass, you had to drive it in play and hit an iron hole high and pitch it and chip it with finesse. It was a time-machine tournament.

​​Bastable: And we thought Bay Hill would be the toughest test on the FLA Swing! What a two-week stretch. It was so fun to watch the guys have to manufacture shots, and as Bamberger suggests, a taste of what a tech rollback might look like. Intriguing, right?

Colgan: Honestly, I think it was a matter of expectation. Golf’s best players expected a firm, fast test, and they were too slow to adjust to the uber soft, slow conditions that greeted them. To Dylan’s point though, the tee times did them ZERO favors.

First, just for amusement, let's relive that Saturday start when Scheffler's group started on No. 17, which was just the ultimate cold open.  Then turned around and had to experience Groundhog Day 2 1/2 hours later.  A tough draw for sure.

A minor point about the draw this week that I can't resolve.  It seems logical that some of the best players in the world would get caught in the nastiness, I'm just not clear on why ALL of them seemed to.   The question I've posed, but am unable to answer, is whether the longer TV window resulted in the alpha dogs all being in the middle of the pack, thereby uniquely whacking them all, at least as compared to a run-of-the-mill Tour event.

One of the points I have made repeatedly about the Phil-Saudi Axis of Evil is that it's a horrible vision for our game.  People are naturally predisposed to wanting to see Tiger v. Phil, ignoring the fact that it's out of character for our game, in the same way that the FedEx Cup is inauthentic.

Here's your final results:


Were this a Premiere/Super/Bonecutter League event, Cam Smith would not have had any need to get up-and-in from the water on No. 18 to secure the biggest win of his life, for the simple reason that Anirban Lahiri would have been watching at home.  As would Keegan and Doug and Sepp and, look, I'm too lazy to look each of these guys in the OWGR.

Simple fact about our game is that a 48-player field is not a serious golf event.  We love and play a crazy game, but without a deep field it's a borderline exhibition.  Awkwardly, that rule applies as well a certain event in Georgia, but let's not harsh our mellow right now.  

Back to Geoff for his comments on the aforementioned No. 322-ranked player in the world:

Anirban Lahiri - His four starts coming into the Players: MC-MC-MC-T74 capped off by a final round 82 at Bay Hill. The 34-year-old came to town ranked 322nd in the world and leaves with a second place finish, $2.18 million and a projected rise to 89th in the world.

I know nobody turns on their TV to see Lahiri, but that's the inherent drama that our game provides.  Seeing that world ranking, this answers my first question:

Lahiri, who hails from India, is 34 years old, and he has status on the PGA Tour this season after finishing in the top 125 in the prior season's FedEx Cup points list.

I'll come away surprised that, regardless of how poorly one plays, that he could drop that precipitously that quickly....

You'll want to talk a little seventeen, won't you?

3. When the conditions were at their wildest, windiest and wettest, the famed 17th hole gave players fits; on Golf Channel, Brandel Chamblee argued that, in strong winds, the hole becomes unfair, because there is too much luck (or bad luck) in play. Did this week change your opinion, for better or for worse, of one of the game’s most iconic holes?

Bamberger: It’s an odd one-off hole. It’s terrible and fun. My opinion didn’t change. I wouldn’t want it on my home course. But at this point in the proceedings, it’s earned its place in the game. It’s embedded in the culture of golf and, like the over-the-top fans in Phoenix, has not inspired a lot or really any notable copy-cat behavior. If you had to, you could chip one off the tee and play an 80-yard second. Or figure out some way to keep it dry.

Yeah, I think that's an apt comparison and framework to appreciate the hole, about which I've always had these very mixed feelings. 

Melton: I thought the chaos was lovely. Carnage is fun!

But I think this from Josh Sens is spot on: 

Sens: If you believe that great designs should offer options, then the 17th has never been a great
hole. But it’s always been an entertaining hole, and this week maybe more than ever. It has actually seemed more unfair to me in some years past, when the green was kept so firm and the collar so shaved down that many good shots bounced off the green into the water or spun back in the drink. This week, at least, it was all nature’s doing. I’m willing to call a course setup unfair. Bad weather is just the luck of the draw.

Bastable: Right. Love me some Brandel, but not this take. He was stuck on the notion that random wind gusts could unfairly punish otherwise well struck shots. Well, yeah, but that’s the nature of golf, whether you’re playing an island-green par-3 or a coast-hugging par-5. Mother Nature is as much an opponent as the other 143 players in the field. It’s a cruel, unfair game. Ask Paul Casey.

Dethier: The hole is what it is. There’s no redesigning it; it’s an island green. And the entire point of the island green is that sometimes, guys will hit the water instead of the island. I thought that watching golfers try to flight different types of shots into the wind made for incredible theater. I was also glad it wasn’t me out there. It didn’t look fun and it wasn’t always fair, but that’s the game.

Colgan: As a kid growing up in the Tiger era, the 17th at Sawgrass was one of the few holes I knew by heart, and one of the first I wanted to see with my own eyes. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to realize its architectural significance leaves a lot to be desired, but let’s let kids be kids.

There's a reason that Tom Doak calls "Fairness" the F-word.  But the point I'd like to reinforces is how many God-awful golf shots were struck under these trying conditions.  It turns out that you can take Touring professionals out of their comfort zone and make them mishit the ball, and I'd like to see this more often.  

4. What Players Championship storyline didn’t get the attention it deserved?

Bamberger: Shane Lowry’s ball-toss. What an arm!

C'mon, didn't he grow up playing baseball like we all did. 

Melton: The sheer absurdity that was the Golden Trophy man reenacting the “Better than Most” putt on the telecast. Wild to see what’s possible with modern tech.

Sens: The fact that I had HIdeki Matsuyama in my pool and his back gave out on him. Talk about unfair!

Dethier: The fact that Keegan Bradley played such spectacular golf that he was arguably the best in the field through 70 holes were it not for an extremely bizarre two-stroke penalty. Also the fact that Dustin Johnson went from 59th to 9th in the final round with a nine-under 63.

Colgan: Knew you’d find a way to reference Keeg here somewhere, Dylan. Anirban Lahiri gets my vote. He played impossibly tough golf over two very long days at a laughably unforgiving golf course, and he didn’t even lose the golf tournament — he got beat. Made a fan out of me and much more importantly, $2.2 million in the process. Good for Anirban.

Do we think Anirban has heard from Greg Norman in the last 24 hours?

I did elide one answer from the bit above, because it highlights my favorite moment of the week:

Bastable: It’ll get more attention in the coming days and weeks but the drama around the Daniel Berger drop was delicious. It’s unclear from the footage where his ball crossed the hazard line on 16 so all we’ve got is one player’s word (Berger’s) vs. two (Viktor Hovland’s and, to lesser a degree, Joel Dahmen’s). You can expect more litigation on this matter, and please, please, give us a Berger-Hovland singles match in Rome.

Geoff has a full post on this at his blog, including this:

Another rules incident was reported but not shown on NBC’s broadcast of the Players, this time involving Daniel Berger being openly questioned by playing partners Joel Dahmen and Viktor Hovland.

It would have been tough to go into great depth with the tournament coming down to the last few holes and Berger having fallen out of contention. Still, this uncomfortable one comes on the heal of similar sticky situations at Bay Hill the previous week.

Thanks to PGA Tour Live and a more progressive Tour posting such things, you can view the Berger shot and lengthy discussion between the three, joined too by chief referee Gary Young who ultimately left things up to the players.

 And this graphic:


This is not in the category of transparently bad drops such as Sung Kang or Tiger on the 14th at Sawgrass in 2013, though there is an amusing bit player in this saga.

Here's Berger:

"I've never taken a bad drop in my life and I’m not about to take one now"

A fellow is gonna bristle when his integrity is questioned, but could we agree to add the word "knowingly"?  There's no reason to think Berger was trying to get away with anything, so let's not think it.

Here's Viktor:

Both Berger and Dahmen declined to speak to the media after the round, but Hovland answered a few questions on the subject.

“It’s not a fun conversation, but when you strongly believe in something, you kind of have to stand your ground,” Hovland said. “It’s not like we’re trying to dog on Daniel and trying to screw him over. It’s just, that’s what we believe, and he obviously felt strongly the other way. It’s just what it is. I’m not accusing him of anything. The golf ball is in the air for a couple seconds, so it’s tough to exactly pinpoint where it crossed and not. But Joel and I saw it in one way and he saw it differently.”

The presence of Joel Dahmen is delightfully ironic, given his involvement with the far more egregious Sung Kang drop a few years back.  Though it does seem that Hovland was the more assertive this time.

My larger point is that this is what Viktor is required to do, given what he thinks he saw.  He has an affirmative obligation to protect the field, and if Berger doesn't see it that way he can pound sand.  I've ben frequently distressed that the modern player, and I'm talking to you, Justin Thomas, doesn't seem to understand their obligations herein.

This one seems to feature transparency, which is never a bad thing:

At least in this case there were social media postings by the PGA Tour sharing the episode and a close viewing would suggest both sides scored legitimate points. The video evidence supports Berger’s belief and ShotLink may lean a bit toward Dahmen and Hovland’s view. That we got to see it via social media is progress and in a weird way, the transparency seems beneficial to all of the players.

This account I find strangely intriguing, accounting for the back-and-forth among the three players.  It sounds to me as if they were all trying to do the right thing, so I do hope no one is pouting in the aftermath.  But in the Sung Kang matter I thought the Tour referee abdicated in his responsibility, basically allowing Kang to do whatever he wanted.  You could call this abdication as well, but I actually think it's the right approach, unless the TV coverage was definitive:

Young was of little help in settling the matter, placing the responsibility on the players to reach consensus and trying to broker a compromise. “You guys had the best angle on it, so you’ll have to decide that amongst yourself like you normally would,” he said.

I think it was well adjudicated.  Sure the b aby got split, but life is messy and imperfect, but I'd be pleased to rehash this over a beer with all three of the gents.

 That's it for today.  Not sure of the blogging schedule going forward, but check back early and often.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)