GNN BLOG by Ryan Ballengee

Ryder Cup Team BETTER Without Tiger?!

2008-08-07T12:28:00.005-04:00

Normally, when I mention the Detroit Free Press, it's to make fun of Carlos Monarrez - the lovable columnist who almost always gets it wrong. This time, though, it's not Carlos that I want to analyze. It's Drew Sharp. Sharp makes a claim dumber than all of the claims Monarrez has ever made: that the US Ryder Cup team is actually BETTER for not having Tiger Woods on it.

What. Here we go!

The idea of addition through subtraction of the world's best player sounds crazy, but the Americans become less aristocratic without Tiger's special care and feeding.
Whom to pair with him? How to keep him motivated?

Drew, the Americans haven't found a pairing that consistently has worked in the Ryder Cup since Tiger has been a professional. Remember when we thought that Chris Riley and Tiger might work? Or how about the Davids Toms and Love III? American captains and players have done a lousy job in this format of findings teams that work.

Kenny Perry nailed it before the Buick Open six weeks ago when he suggested that despite the challenges of losing the greatest player around, the United States "may become a tougher team" in Woods' absence.

They would have to be tougher in terms of talent because Woods cannot lend his services. That would definitely not imply that they're better despite Woods' meh record in the event (10-13-2). Also, Kenny Perry should not be quoted in reference to toughness - skipping qualifying for the US Open and an exemption into the British Open to do nothing and play in Milwaukee (a.k.a. kill time).

But, Sharp decides that this is something to be lauded in making the Ryder Cup team better because he wants to be there. I have to thoroughly disagree. Just because Hunter Mahan said what a lot of guys really think doesn't mean that guys don't want to play on the Ryder Cup team. They want to play on a fun Ryder Cup team. You know, like the Pres Cup teams that Jack Nicklaus captained.

Last, though, I have a statement in Sharp's column that I kind of agreed with at first and then disagreed with vehemently.

Azinger would never admit it, but actually his job just got a little easier.

Ok, so Zinger doesn't have Tiger. That means he loses a guy who is basically a crapshoot to win or lose his matches. Yes, Woods is the best player alive, but he is not the best Ryder Cup player alive - that goes to either Monty or Sergio. Therefore, Zinger didn't really lose much in losing Woods. In exchange, he did lose some expectations from some of the golf community.

But, for anyone who follows golf, the expectations were not tempered. People know that Woods is marginal in the Ryder Cup. Therefore, having him on the team or not really doesn't mean much in terms of points. And that means that we should basically expect the same from Azinger without the benefit of having Ryder Cupper Tiger Woods. (See action figure.)

Here are our 8 automatic qualifiers for the Ryder Cup if we made the team today.

Cink (3-5-4), Mickelson (9-12-4), Perry (0-2-0), Furyk (6-12-2), Kim (NR), Leonard (0-3-5), Weekley (NR), Stricker (NR).

They have records that are WAY worse than Tiger's 50% point rate. That means that it is possible that the Americans could actually do worse on their own home turf than they did at Oakland Hills. Even with somewhat tempered expectations, how does that make Azinger's life easier or Woods' absence a positive?

Golf Channel Claims Increased PGA Tour Audience

2008-08-07T11:26:00.003-04:00

I did not see this column yesterday, but it is in the Orlando Sentinel and is Josh Robbins' Golf Confidential. In it, he talks about how the Golf Channel is seeing gains in viewership this year for their PGA Tour coverage.

[Golf Channel] executives point to Nielsen Co. data that show their network can enjoy modest growth even without Tiger. From last year to this year, the Golf Channel actually has seen a ratings increase of 5 percent in its hole-to-hole coverage of nine tournaments Woods didn't enter in 2007 and couldn't enter this year because of knee trouble.

For the network, these are encouraging numbers. The statistics indicate that the Golf Channel has a core group of die-hard golf fans who will watch even without Tiger.

To some extent, I think you have to account for the increased number of homes to which the Golf Channel has access now that they are the home of the PGA Tour. That earned the network a lot of street cred. The question, then, is if this 5% is just because more homes get the Golf Channel, or the channel is increasing in popularity.

Either way, here's something to take away from comparing 2007 to 2008's PGA Tour telecasts.

At a time when broadcast networks are seeing less than 3 percent growth in PGA Tour viewership, the Golf Channel delivered an impressive 19 percent increase over its 2007 PGA Tour coverage with households and a 21 percent increase with its key demo, men 25 to 54.

Again, this may lend a hint to the increase in viewers for non-Tiger events. People finally realized that TGC is where to go for PGA Tour coverage and started getting access to it through satellite and cable.

Finally, from the second piece, something to prove why the Olympics will do nothing for golf.

[G]olf programming is watched by the most affluent television viewers, and the network has been ranked No. 1 in median household income six years running. Golfers not only aspire to play better, they aspire to achieve the better things in life.

My Article on The First Tee in Local Magazine

2008-08-07T11:05:00.002-04:00

I have a piece in Press Box this week - a Baltimore based sports paper. It's on The First Tee, which is a youth golf initiative that I back very firmly. We've been fortunate enough to have Joe Louis Barrow, head of the national program, on The 19th Hole. I hope you'll enjoy the piece, even if you're not from the area.

Press Box: First Tee Gets Kids Swinging

Golf in the Olympics: The Battle Continues

2008-08-07T10:52:00.002-04:00

Fact or Fiction over at ESPN.com (which they've stopped doing on TV, it seems) debates the merits of having golf in the Olympics. My stance is that golf in the Olympics is a terrible idea. With that in mind, I have a problem with Ron Sirak's assumptions as to why golf should be in the Olympics.

There could be no more significant grow-the-game program for golf than making it an Olympic sport. Just imagine what it would mean for the golf economy and for the talent pool of the game if China or India, for example, got seriously committed to developing world-class golfers.

They are already starting to get serious about developing the game. Go ahead and Google golf in China or India and you'll see articles that point you to the growth of the game among the new middle and upper classes.

Before we get anywhere in growing world-class golfers, though, there has to be a generation of stability in the class system. I assure you that won't be completed by 2016. The fact is that - in most cases - money is required to get into this game at a world-class level.

Additionally, the game is growing in these two countries on its own. It does not need an Olympic distraction for a boring 72 hole event.

Having golf in the Olympics also would expand the fan base of the game by putting the sport in front of those spectators who love sports but might not necessarily watch golf. And once you get new people in the tent, a certain amount are bound to come back. It's a no-brainer: Golf in the Olympics would be great for the game.

Over half of the world lives on less than $1 dollar per day. Golf does not exactly represent a sport that all classes can appreciate. Combine both of those facts together and its not all that likely that golf will grow much, if at all, by having an event in the Olympics.

Also, Sirak seems to ignore the Tiger phenomenon when he says that once you get people watching, they'll keep coming back. That's BS. Read Tom Bonk's wrap up column every week and see the kind of ratings pain the Tour is feeling in his absence. That happens every time he doesn't play. People watch golf to see Tiger. If he's not there, it's a non-starter.

Last, golf will not be able to supplant sports like soccer, rugby, and cricket (the last two of which are being considered for reinstatement to the games) in terms of international attention. The Olympics will not change that one iota.

Baltusrol Gets 2016 PGA Championship

2008-08-07T10:25:00.002-04:00

Seriously, where has my life gone? 2016?! I will be 33 then! Anyway, just wanted to pass that along.

Can we be looking forward to a regional majors pissing match between the PGA of America and USGA - which is rumored to be bringing Oakmont in as the 2016 Open host?

Fields Out as LPGA Sponsor

2008-08-07T10:23:00.003-04:00

We all knew this was coming, but Golfweek confirms it.

The Fields Corporation, title sponsor of the Fields Open in Hawaii, has announced it will not renew its title sponsorship for the LPGA tournament for 2009, leaving an early-season hole on the tour’s schedule for next year.

Fields officials said the Japanese entertainment company will concentrate its future marketing efforts primarily in Japan. There had been speculation the event was in trouble and might not return, one of several LPGA tournaments that is having title sponsor issues.

That's not really news, but this sounds interesting:

“I think our No. 1 objective is to get more U.S. tournaments (with) full fields,” Inkster said.

That seems to fly in the face of international expansion of the LPGA Tour. I'd be very curious to know the explicit objective of Commissioner Bivens. I don't know it one way or the other, but I'm not certain that Inkster and the Commish would see eye-to-eye on that.

GROOVES REGULATION! The Reaction

2008-08-06T10:56:00.002-04:00

Geoff Shackelford has a good recap post of reactions in the media room from players at the PGA Championship to the rules change that has been approved by the R&A and USGA.

My favorite reaction, though, is from Masters champion Trevor Immelman.

[Y]ou can change the grooves, but then they're going to have to scale the golf courses back, because you can't give guys no advantage with grooves. Because you got to understand one thing: As soon as we change the grooves, we're probably going to have to alter the ball we use, because if you're not getting as much spin, you're probably going to have to start using a softer golf ball.

In the last few years, we're using harder golf balls because the drivers allow us to launch the ball higher off the tee. So we need less spin, and we have had good grooves on our irons, so we have been able to launch the ball to create enough spin.

So we're going to have to go back and the manufacturers are going to have to go back to the drawing board. And I know Nike has been working on this since the USGA started sending the smoke up that they may be doing this. I had a look at a few prototypes where they have started working on some different groove variations.

And I like I was saying, as we change the grooves, we're going to have to start maybe looking at the way our golf ball is performing. And at that point the R&A and USGA may have to decide how they're going to set the golf courses up. Are we still going to have rough that is this deep (indicating). And like today out there, we have got guys the rough is pretty juicy here but you still got guys with these rakes out there making sure that it stands up this high. It's quite interesting.

But so I think that you're going to have to give and take. So that's where they're going to have to figure out how are they going to give and take. Because they can't just keep taking.

Couldn't be more true. Trevor has the point down, though. This rules change should compel players to seek balls that don't go as far in an effort to gain better control from the ball in the rough. Instead of relying on the club, they'll have to sacrifice something from their golf ball. Immelman also is right that course setups will have to change in response to the rule change.

GROOVES REGULATION!

2008-08-05T14:51:00.002-04:00

Dick Rugge, you dog you! I had a feeling something was up when Dawson let the cat out of the bag at the Open Championship, but we have grooves regulation from the R&A and USGA announced today.

First, from the USGA site:

The United States Golf Association (USGA) today announced revisions to the Rules of Golf, placing new restrictions on the cross sectional area and edge sharpness of golf club grooves.
The revisions are designed to restore the challenge of playing shots to the green from the rough by reducing backspin on those shots. The initial focus of the new rules will be competitions involving highly skilled professional golfers and will have little impact on the play of most golfers.

Much better worded than what the R&A had to say:
The R&A has today announced revisions to golf’s equipment Rules, which are designed to enhance the benefits of accuracy by making playing from the rough a more challenging prospect in future.
Translation: We love rough and we want to keep using it as much as we want!

Now, about implementation:

The rules control the cross sectional area of grooves on all clubs, with the exception of drivers and putters, and limit groove edge sharpness on clubs with lofts equal to or greater than 25 degrees (generally a standard 5-iron and above).

The rules apply to clubs manufactured after January 1, 2010, the same year that the USGA will enforce the new regulations through a condition of competition for the U.S. Open, U.S. Women’s Open and U.S. Senior Open and each of their qualifying events. All USGA amateur championships will apply the new regulations through the condition of competition, after January 1, 2014.

The PGA Tour, the European PGA Tour, the LPGA, the PGA of America and the International Federation of PGA Tours have all indicated their support for the new regulations on grooves. Each of these organizations, as well as the Augusta National Golf Club, have told the USGA and The R&A, the game’s governing bodies, that they intend to adopt the condition of competition, applying the rules for their competitions, beginning on January 1, 2010.

We have a phase in approach which gives amateurs about six years to get their clubs in order. That seems pretty fair.

The announcement also has links to a PDF sent the manufacturers and a good pictorial of what grooves are good and which aren't.

Reactions?

Weekly Ratings Pain

2008-08-05T11:51:00.002-04:00

Thomas Bonk must hate his job right now in delivering bone-shivering bad news every week to the golf fan about golf TV ratings. But, since I'm just a third party messenger, I feel ok about it.

Saturday's third round of the WGC Bridgestone Invitational had a 1.5 overnight rating for CBS and Sunday's fourth round had a 2.1. The women fared worse on ABC, with a 0.7 on Saturday and a 0.6 on Sunday at the Ricoh Women's British Open.

The Women's Open number isn't really that bad. Bridgestone looks pretty bad, though I don't have comparison numbers. I should really get that subscription to Nielsen, but I have no sponsorship nor the resources of major news operations. So it is Bonk you will get and nothing else.

Callaways Has a Way to Improve Golf Participation

2008-08-04T17:57:00.004-04:00

George Fellows, head man over at Callaway, was on CNBC's Fast Money show just a few minutes ago. He was talking about the quarter for the company, which was apparently pretty ok. I wouldn't touch a golf stock with my own money, though. Anyway, he was grilled by the panel about how Callaway can return money to shareholders by building wealth and growth.

Fellows' answer? He thinks that getting golf into the Olympics will grow the game. Really. He said it. On live television.

How, then, would one explain the dynamic growth of the game in Asia Minor, India, China, Korea, and other developing countries?

Whole Lotta LPGA TV-Sponsorship News

2008-08-04T13:47:00.004-04:00

Jon Show brings everyone up to speed on the LPGA TV situation. Remember, the last time that we talked about this topic, Show talked about the potential that the LPGA is shopping around an 8 tournament series, perhaps including the now-moving and LPGA-owned LPGA Championship and the ADT Championship, to television. They faced some major challenges in getting the series together, first. They had to identify the eight tournaments that would pay for production and media buys, etc. They also had to find a television partner(s) to broadcast the series on cable and network television.

The LPGA is trying to get closer to the first part of that situation by floating the idea of a series title sponsorship - a la what FedEx is doing with the FedEx Cup, to the tune of $35 million each year, plus extra kick ins.

The LPGA is putting a $4 million annual price tag on an umbrella sponsorship for the eight-tournament series it hopes to get on network television in 2010.

Tour officials made a presentation to a small number of tournament owners and title sponsors who recently attended a sponsor summit at the Evian Masters in Paris. Those in attendance included representatives primarily from international events, as well as executives from HSBC, Kraft Nabisco and Stanford Financial — all of whom title sponsor LPGA tournaments.

Sources familiar with the details of the presentation characterized the umbrella sponsorship as a media commitment that would be used to write down the television expenses of the tournaments participating in the series.

The LPGA is shopping the series to television networks as an aggregated time buy.

Time and production generally cost about $1.7 million per event, so each of the eight tournaments would have to kick in $1.2 million with $500,000 coming from the umbrella sponsor.

The LPGA is also selling three supporting sponsorships of the series for around $1 million a year, but it was unclear where that money would be allocated.

Tour officials did not discuss what other assets would be included with the umbrella sponsorship aside from some form of naming or presenting rights. Standard inventory such as on-site activation and hospitality are expected to be part of any deal.

This is a pretty big deal. It could indicate several things.
1. It could indicate that the LPGA Tour is finding a difficult time in getting eight events to sign up to pay almost $2 million each for better exposure on network television.

This is probably particularly true given the problems with both Ginn and SemGroup. Looking on the schedule as it stands today, we could probably find only a few events willing to get in on a season ending 8 event schedule. Two are LPGA owned - LPGA Championship and ADT Championship. Given what Show is reporting and who attended, it would appear the LPGA is interested in targeting the Evian Masters and HSBC Women's Champions events - sponsors with strong LPGA ties. CN would almost certainly get in on the action for the Canadian Women's Open, going to $2.75 million next year. They may be able to convince Safeway since they now only have one tournament to sponsor. Still, the coalition is not a cinch, but they're probably halfway there. Therefore, to defer some of the production costs - which, in many cases, are higher than the event purses - a title sponsor and subsequent sponsors may be needed. (By the way, I would bet that Ginn would not mind being title sponsor for the series for a paltry $4 million.)

2. The LPGA Tour is presenting this package as a value compared to what their real sponsorship worth probably is.

Consider that FedEx's investment is in a 33 event series for $35 million in bonus money. This deal is for 8 events - approximately 1/4 of the FEC - and is 1/9 of the cost, with no bonus money required. This sponsorship is exactly what it appears: a bridge to get to the end goal.

3. The LPGA Tour is not expecting to get one network for the series. Show reports:

Talks with NBC and CBS continue, but neither is interested in airing all eight events, meaning they would have to be split among the two. Sources said NBC is interested in four events; CBS in four to six.

4. The ADT Championship - whose sponsorship deal ends in 2008 - is likely dead with ADT as title sponsor. Again, from Show:

For an additional fee, the umbrella sponsor could also title sponsor a new season-ending event that would conclude the eight-tournament series.

That is not exactly a given because there has been serious talk of moving the ADT to the start of the season beginning in 2010, but perhaps the event will have a new title sponsor regardless of its position on the schedule.

Big developments here if you read between the lines.

The 19th Hole: This is the World's Best?

2008-08-04T10:20:00.000-04:00

Last year, Firestone yielded just one player to finish under par at the WGC Bridgestone Invitational. That was Tiger Woods and he won by a dominating eight shots over the field and, in the process, silenced Rory Sabbatini for good. The conditions were ridiculous and player complained.

This year, Tiger Woods was not available to win yet another World Golf Championship. The Tour, therefore, found it a perfect week to “experiment” with a concept that many amateurs love – lower height of the rough. The move was designed to let players miss off of the tee and at least have some reasonable opportunity to advance the ball to the green.

The experiment turned out to be a brilliant success. Twenty-six golfers finished under par for the event this year. Fans were treated to recovery shots from the players – Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh in particular – that were a sight to behold. It created more exciting golf from tee to green.

Unfortunately, though, it is pretty much impossible to cut the grass down any lower on the greens at Firestone. They are nuanced and fairly quick, but really not nearly as difficult as the players are going to see at Oakland Hills in next week’s PGA Championship. Still, despite their fairly benign nature, almost all of the contenders for the Bridgestone Invitational ceded strokes due to lackluster short games.

Phil Mickelson gave away the championship because of his inability to two putt following an inability to shape a bunker shot in line with green receptiveness to bunker play.

Lee Westwood has made a career of being solid from tee to green, but leaving the balance of a tournament only in doubt of whether or not he can make putts of any significant length. On Sunday, he really could not, and gave up an opportunity to force a playoff with Vjiay Singh on a simple putt uphill at the last hole.

The eventual champion, Vijay Singh, was simply dreadful for the entire week on the greens. Between four and eight feet, he made less than half of his putts for the week. That is embarrassing for a PGA Tour pro. On the Sunday back nine, Singh could have had the tournament wrapped up were it not for his lack of confidence in putting. He over-thought every putt and it almost cost him the title. The final putt to win the tournament practically ran around the edge of the cup before finally giving in to gravity.

This event was certainly compelling. But it was compelling for all of the wrong reasons. Only one man was playing great golf down the stretch. Stuart Appleby was that man, but he began his charge too late to rustle away the championship from undeserving contenders.

The outcome of the back nine at Firestone leads one to question what we are really getting in the absence of Tiger Woods from the Tour. Commissioner Tim Finchem was in the booth with CBS’ Jim Nantz to talk about the Tour sans-Tiger. Finchem alluded to the variety of intriguing storylines that now had a chance to receive real attention with Woods out of the way. He discussed Anthony Kim and wins by Kenny Perry as stories worth watching, and even drew in the duel between Singh and Mickelson.

If I were Commissioner Finchem, I would look at the product we saw on Sunday and be worried. Fans would much rather have seen another Tiger thumping than four guys play footsy to see who would win over a million dollars. The ratings will show that I’m not lying.

What is worse is for the PGA of America. The PGA Championship is generally considered the weakest of the four majors despite about a decade of improvements to the championship rotation. It is the last major and most players are simply gunning to get a major in without Woods in the field. Depending on Woods’ rehab, this may be their last shot for a while to do just that. That may cause some inspired and desperate play, but if that play is of the caliber that we saw at Firestone, then fans can expect an over par winning score for the 90^th PGA Championship at Oakland Hills.

Seriously, Euro Journalists Are Having an Off Day

2008-08-03T11:51:00.004-04:00

First, John Huggan phoned one in on the PGA Championship - even if his premise was right. Now, Richard Bath is doing the same about the Ryder Cup and defending the comments of Hunter Mahan - again, right premise, wrong presentation.

Legends of the American game such as Woods, Mickelson, David Duval and Mark O'Meara have been open about the reason for their antipathy towards an organisation which has all the financial transparency of the average MP's expenses claims. They also have a lukewarm attitude towards the USPGA and want the Players Championship – owned, controlled and completely accountable to the US Tour – to formalise its position as "the fifth Major".

Really? Because, the last I heard, Tiger Woods really doesn't like TPC Sawgrass and only plays in the Players as an act of goodwill to the Tour. Phil Mickelson said that the Players is the fifth major - after winning it first. Duval and O'Meara, well, we'll leave things unsaid but they are certainly not legends of the game.

Again, though, Bath has substance to his claims that American annoyance with the Ryder Cup is a big problem for Europe. While I disagree with the notion that Americans will simply just walk away from the Ryder Cup if big changes are not made, he is right that Americans seek change from the PGA of America.

Finally, this leads into an interesting discussion about the PGA of America. While I do not consider them to be a dinosaur and dying entity, it appears to be the opinion of several European journalists. Is that reality? Is the PGA dead?

Lefty on the Verge at Firestone

2008-08-03T09:08:00.002-04:00

Steve Elling talks about it in his game story. But, most interesting to me is this Mickelson quotation from the press room:

"It would be nice to win a WGC, it really would," Mickelson said. "I haven't really thought about it too much. I think maybe 20 years from now or 30 years from now they'll have prestige, much like I think the guys who first won the Masters had no idea what this tournament was going to become.

"I have no idea where the WGCs will be 30 years from now. They started midway through my career, so I haven't given them the priority like I do a major or care about like a major.

"But they are always the best fields in the game, they're always on great golf courses, they're always on tough tests of golf, so I think there's a lot of merit to whoever wins those, yeah."

I find this particularly funny considering the Huggan piece about major championships. Identity and field strength were particular concerns of Huggan's column. Let's take a look at the criteria to get into the Bridgestone Invitational.

Playing members of the last named United States and International Presidents Cup teams.
Playing members of the last named United States and European Ryder Cup teams.
If not otherwise eligible, players ranked among the top 50, including any players tied for 50th place, on the Official World Golf Ranking as of the Monday prior to and the Monday of tournament week.
If not otherwise eligible, tournament winners of worldwide events since the prior year's Bridgestone Invitational with an Official World Golf Ranking strength-of-field rating of 115 points or more.
If not otherwise eligible, the winner of one selected tournament from the PGA Tour of Australasia, Sunshine Tour, Asian Tour and Japan Golf Tour.

The first four criteria seem pretty reasonable - except for those outliers of guys who qualified for the Ryder Cup and President's Cup teams. I'm looking at Chris DiMarco, or Mark Brown, who got in by winning the Johnnie Walker Classic. (Really?!) Overall, though, the field does not appear to be a problem. Sure, having no cut is a problem, but I digress.

How about the quality of courses? Well, like it or not, Firestone has hosted several major championships before and has hosted this event every year but one. Still, the other WGC events have not had quite the same history for their host courses. It is debatable if Valderrama is a major golf course, and same with the Grove, Capital City Club, and Mount Juliet. And don't even get me started on the match play host courses. (But that doesn't really matter much.)

So, does Mickelson have a point? What will the value of the WGCs be in 20 years?

Is the PGA Championship Weak As a Major?

2008-08-03T08:43:00.004-04:00

The PGA Championship is next week, and apparently, a lot of people consider it to be the weakest of the four majors. Kenny Perry and Scott Hoch may disagree, but John Huggan writes about the majors from the British perspective.

First, he states the obvious - the PGA Championship lacks identity.

While the Masters is instantly recognisable by the course on which it is played every April; the US Open too by the typically (until this year) one-dimensional and penal nature of the challenge presented; and our own Open Championship by its proximity to the nearest ocean; the US PGA looks and feels a lot like, oh, a Memorial, or a Wachovia, or a John Deere Classic. Last time I cocked an ear, no one was shouting for any of those tournaments to be promoted into major-like status.

Huggan is definitely wrong on the last part of his claim, though. The PGA Championship has had a great course rotation and setup for the last decade or so. It has consistently been more fair and more interesting architecturally than the US Open for the last 10 years and the Masters for the last four. The ratings have been pretty solid - actually higher than that of the Open Championship.

Of course, though, you have to remember that the British press love hyperbole. Continuing along that line, Huggan goes on to quote Ken Brown - biased British commentator.

"[J]ust being the fourth biggest championship in the game makes it a pretty big deal. Compared with every other tournament played around the world, fourth is still pretty impressive. But it is definitely number four if you have to choose."

Oh, yeah, definitely fourth. I don't think that the PGA is any one's first major, but it is not clearly last on everyone's lists.

Or, let's hear from Paul Lawrie - a guy whose opinion is perfectly invalid.

"The US PGA would definitely be fourth on my list," agrees former Open champion Paul Lawrie. "I'd go Open, Masters, US Open, US PGA. The others have a character that the US PGA doesn't have. It is just another event. In fact, I'd put the Players Championship ahead of the US PGA. That's a fantastic tournament with a great field. I know the US PGA has a great field, too, but the Players should be the major."

Uh oh, someone has been paying Paul Lawrie and Stephen Ames to prop up the Players - even in the British press.

Huggan, normally reliable for good opinions, basically brushes aside Adam Scott's claim that he does not rank any major above another.

While Scott's view has some obvious merit and support, for long enough the race for the huge Wanamaker Trophy was being run on the golfing equivalent of a public park when an Olympic stadium was available elsewhere. This championship has visited some real goat tracks.

For the second time in the piece, Huggan has a point. He talks about PGA National in 1987, which was pretty crappy and still is as host of the Honda Classic. There are definitely some stinkers on the list of host courses. Still, it's not like people are clamoring to play Royal Lytham, Royal St George's, Royal Liverpool, and definitely not Prestwick Golf Club (though the website makes the course seem very nice).

The best value of the Huggan column is that he poses an interesting question - what tournaments today would be considered major championships if we were picking from scratch? Your thoughts?

Three Rounds Complete At Sunningdale

2008-08-02T14:21:00.003-04:00

It should be a very frantic final round in the Ricoh Women's British Open - third round airing now on ABC. Yuri Fudoh leads on -13 and is one clear of Ji Yai Shin (ranked 10th in the world, KLPGA dominator). Ai Miyazato, who finished T4 at Interlachen, is in third. Then there are two Americans, 1st round leader Juli Inkster and Natalie Gulbis, tied for 4th at -10.

At the beginning of the week, I said on The 19th Hole that I was looking for a -10 winning score. That obviously will not be correct, barring some awful weather tomorrow. But, the sentiment has been correct. Scoring in this championship has been a must and the winner tomorrow will have to earn it, not back into it.

On other fronts, I expected a big week from the Asian contingent and obviously am getting it. I was looking for something huge from Na Yeon Choi. She's tied for 10th at -8 with Momoko Ueda and defending champion Lorena Ochoa.

Ochoa went out today in a blistering 32, with the lead in her sights. Coming home, though, she fired 39 (+3) to finish where she did. That may well have cost her the title, but she did prove that lots of low scores are possible. She will need a 65 tomorrow to win.

Looking out into the world for other coverage...
Mostly Harmless has a great recap of the round, per usual.
Here's a bio of Ji Yai Shin, who won 9 times last year on the KLPGA in her second season.

Other links to come also.

Wie Plays Against Advice of Brain Trust

2008-08-02T12:39:00.003-04:00

Michelle Wie missed the cut at Reno with a two round total of +9. Whatever. What's more interesting is how the decision to play at Reno was considered a bad idea by almost every one of Wie's advisers, except her parents. Steve Elling blogs:

Not only did swing coach David Leadbetter advise against accepting the sponsor exemption, a source close to the Wie camp said her high-profile management group was steadfastly against the idea and made a last-ditch plea to talk her out of it.

A representative from the William Morris Agency personally spoke with the Wies in an attempt to get them to reconsider playing in the Reno event this week, but to no avail.

Leadbetter, who has endured a soap opera the past two seasons as the Wies have ignored his counsel about playing through injuries and other issues, pulled no punches earlier this week regarding her decision. He's nearly reached his limit, he told his staffers.

"There’s far too much negative energy surrounding Michelle right now," Leadbetter said. "She’s getting slated by everyone. She is going to be like a pariah if she is not careful. This is the wrong decision."

As ever, the Wie's are creating controversy wherever they tread. Annika Sorenstam criticized Wie for not attempting to qualify for this week's Women's British Open. Driven, a new book about junior players and golf by author Kevin Cook, offers some unflattering details about the Wie family and their occasionally ridiculous demands of tournament sponsors and others, including Donald Trump.

(Link added by me - the book is a the study of a year at the David Leadbetter Academy.)

Classic Club Out, Makes Case for 1 in 4 Rule on PGA Tour

2008-08-01T20:28:00.004-04:00

Ok, so none of the pros liked the Classic Club as a part of the three headed beast that is the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic. The clamoring got so bad that the tournament had to respond and remove Classic Club from the rotation for the tournament for 2009.

[R]emember this: The pros are the commodity on the PGA Tour. Without the players, a tournament has nothing to promote, no reason for fans to buy tickets, no reason for people to tune in.
And that's why, painful and unfair as it might be, the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic had to move off Classic Club.
Know this about Classic Club. It's a very good golf course. From tee to green, the course flows well, challenges golfers with hills and lakes and bunkers and has features like pine straw that aren't duplicated on any course in the desert.

(I don't think Classic Club is a very good golf course, but I'm a design snob.)

And on a majority of days, there is either no wind or just a typical desert breeze. But when it is windy at Classic Club, it's very windy. Pros at the 2008 Hope were saying if you heard a forecast for wind in the desert, you could just add 10 mph to it at Classic Club.
And pros hate wind. It's the one variable in golf they can't control. The wind can get strong one minute, stop the next, swirl the next. The wind can take a well-struck shot and blow it over a green or into a bunker or a lake.
And with so many $5 million and $6 million tournaments on tour, it becomes easier and easier for a pro to just skip an event for no reason better than that one of the courses tends to be windy.
The folks at the Hope tournament learned that lesson. And they knew pretty quickly that they couldn't sacrifice their golf tournament for a single course, even if they happen to own that one course. A bitter pill, but it had to be swallowed.

Larry Bohannan in the Desert Sun says that it was necessary for the event to survive. Given that George Lopez is out, Arnie is in (for one year), and the course change, he may be right.

Jack Nicklaus' Private Course at PGA West will replace Classic Club.

Dotties and Bernhard and Bears... Oh My!

2008-08-01T20:21:00.002-04:00

From the US Senior Open...

Text Messaging Players and Media

2008-08-01T10:44:00.002-04:00

Text messaging is huge nowadays. Apparently, it has even extended to the relationships between players and the media, and media and the media. Let's get some text messages on here that you'd like to send to players or members of the media. I'll pick the best one and read it on air next week.

(Royal) Wie Can Do It

2008-08-01T10:19:00.003-04:00

Michelle Wie had five bogeys and four birdies in a +1 round at the Legends Reno-Tahoe Open. It's a solid score. She's eight out of the lead of Jeff Overton. Right now, though, an even par round would not land Wie in the weekend. The projected cut is even par. I'm guessing that it'll get to -1 by the time the day ends. Wie will have to go under par today to make the cut. Still, this is already way better than her last several efforts at men's events.

When it was announced that Wie would be playing in the event, I was against it. I still am, even if she makes the cut. I get the arguments in favor of it, or even neutral about it. But, learning to win matters. Wie will not learn how to win by barely making or missing a cut. I maintain that the people surrounding and advising her are not looking out for her best interests - particularly after her comment about handling money earlier in the week.

But, I will root for her today.

What's With the Mahan Backlash?

2008-07-31T10:12:00.003-04:00

Earlier in the week, I posted a link to Golf Magazine's interview with Hunter Mahan in which I called him pretty cool. In the interview, he takes a few shots at the PGA of America for the Ryder Cup - saying that players should get paid (or have donations made in their name to charity), it's too much pomp and circumstance, and that the Americans have no fun playing it. Realistically, all three of those sentiments are true. Still, Mahan is getting pummeled by the media. Why?

Bill Nichols of the Dallas Morning News joined the chorus.

Plano's Hunter Mahan is right. If everybody else is making money on the Ryder Cup, then the players should get a cut. And he's right about social engagements being a distraction at the biennial matches between the United States and Europe.

But going off on the Ryder Cup was all wrong. His critical comments virtually assure him of not being one of Paul Azinger's four captain's picks. And the firestorm that is sure to follow will come back to haunt him, particularly when he makes the team.

If he's so right in what he is saying, what is wrong with getting that all out in the open? Players love the President's Cup because it is the direct opposite of the Ryder Cup - it's fun. (Cache this page because I am indirectly complimenting Tim Finchem and that doesn't happen often.)

The PGA of America does make course selection for the Ryder Cup just another part of their rotation through a stable of courses that host their events. Why not do what the Europeans do and host the Ryder Cup at a regular Tour stop? How about cutting back on some of the social events and just let the guys enjoy playing golf for their country...and drink a 12 pack on their own time?

I think a lot of people are happy with the changes Captain Paul Azinger made to the selection criteria for this year, but that's only one part of the problem for the US and their performance. The other part of it is restoring fun. The Euros have fun and they win. The Americans don't and lose. Get it?

Women's British Open Round 1

2008-07-31T10:02:00.002-04:00

Scoring is excellent almost 3/4 of the way through the first round of the Ricoh Women's British Open. Juli Inkster fired -7 at Sunningdale to hold a one shot lead over four golfers.

For those of you wondering about the Asian contingent, three of the four second place players are Asian. On the course now, Kristy McPherson and Stacy P. have nice rounds going at -5.

Wondering if Inkster's lead can hold? She may seem to have an affinity for links golf, but she does not really have the results to back up that love. In 10 WBO starts, her best finish is T4 in 2006. She has two missed cuts. At Sunningdale, she has T12, MC, and T25.

Also, Lorena Ochoa is playing fairly well to start her defense. She is at -3 through her first round. Helen Alfredsson is tied with Ochoa. Paula Creamer is -2 thru 10. Annika fired even par and is seven off of the pace.

The 19th Hole Golf Show Talks LPGA Sponsors

2008-07-31T09:55:00.002-04:00

If you read this blog, then you've already seen that we have a sidebar link for this week's podcast. But, if you catch us through a feed, another website, etc, you may not know that The 19th Hole Golf Show this week has a great interview with Sports Business Journal/Daily's Jon Show. He's their golf reporter and we spoke for about 12 minutes regarding the bad weekend for LPGA sponsors and the fallout from that.

As it turns out, it may not all be bad news for the LPGA Tour and there are several potential new events that could come on line. Show then talks about the impact of these events on the cable negotiations and LPGA goals to own more events.

New Players Playoff Format?

2008-07-30T13:19:00.002-04:00

You know how everyone complained about starting a playoff for a prestigious event with a near $2 million payout on an island green par 3 that is subjected to crosswinds? And also that it would be so cool if they had a 3 hole playoff comprising 16, 17, and 18? Well, we might get it! This, according to Golf.com's Tour Confidential:

I heard from a good source that the Tour and NBC are discussing a three-hole playoff — the 16th, 17th and 18th at TPC Sawgrass — in case of a tie at the Players Championship. Starting a sudden-death playoff at a par-3 like the island-green 17th was always kind of goofy and quickly killed any drama this year when Paul Goydos dunked his tee shot to lose to Garcia. The three-hole playoff is a great idea and one that I've mentioned here before, just like I suggested that the Masters should go to a three-hole playoff at Amen Corner.

Of course, both tournaments would have to move up the tee times a little on Sunday to leave enough daylight for the extra holes, and I'm not sure either the Tour or TV wants to do that, but I'm glad they're at least taking a serious look at it.

They should bump up the tee times for every major final round to 2pm or 1:30pm. Let's get it overwith!