Bad news for the golf companies means good news for you, the golfer, if you’ve been waiting to get some new clubs.

Adam Schupak at Golfweek unveils the mysterious reasons for the decline:

Equipment makers and retailers agree golfers are postponing purchases. To spark sales, some manufacturers are cutting prices: Callaway has lowered its FT-i driver to $399 from $499, and its FT-5 to $299 from $425. From May to July, Callaway also offered consumers who purchased a driver a gift card to purchase as much as $100 of gas. Mark Marney, CEO of The Golf Warehouse, expects such incentives to become more prevalent during the second half of the year.

It’s not rocket science – if you price a club to cost way too much, no one will buy it except morons. Golf clubs are like cars because they are long-term investments that depreciate in value the day you take them off of the showroom floor. Therefore, you want modern technology at the lowest price possible and you’ll wait until you get the price you want.

But, the club companies see things a different way. They’re blaming USGA regulations for slow sales.

Another persistent complaint: USGA restrictions are hindering product innovation. In an analyst report on Callaway, Casey Alexander of New York-based Gilford Securities wrote: “The U.S. market looks like it could produce a year where equipment sales come in down 7 percent to 8 percent, which may not sound that bad until you judge it against 10 years of equipment sales that were plus or minus 2 percent regardless of what the economy was doing.”

Those two sentences do not compute. There are myriad factors more important in determining the golf economy – weak dollar, foreclosures, credit crisis, oil, commodity prices. Just because you can’t make a 550cc driver that has a max distance of 400 yards doesn’t mean you should blame the USGA. Hell, they should be thanking the USGA. In 2014, we’ll all have to have new equipment anyway!

One thing that did bum me out, though, was that people are not warming up to adjustable clubs as I may have hoped. Still, interviews I have conducted across the industry suggested that might be the case. (Catch The 19th Hole Golf Show archives on iTunes for the audio.)

I have had a few days to digest the USGA and R&A’s decision to go forth with grooves regulation beginning in 2010 for major professional competitions and 2014 for amateur players. When the proposal was made almost 18 months ago, I was soundly against the decision to regulate grooves. At the time, I thought that the only way to get to appropriate regulation of golf technology would be through scaling back golf ball technology. The decision to try to regulate grooves appeared to be a weak attempt by the USGA to back door into the true regulation required.

Over time, though, I have come around on grooves regulation. In fact, this year, I went so far as to demand that it happen. I backed it in the shadow of doubt cast over the future of the regulation in the early part of the year, particularly because of the R&A’s reported stalling on the acceptance of the rule change.

In the linked column, I noted PGA Tour data that I had analyzed to discover that players – on the whole – have not modified their club selection approach to par 4s and par 5s. Therefore, I drew the conclusion that the regulations for drivers already put in place by the USGA had no real impact on how players approach these holes. Additionally, the tightening of course setups by the PGA Tour in recent years has had a statistically insignificant impact of how professionals play from the tee.

The conclusion to draw from that fact now seems clear. Professional golf is a distance game. For the average professional, the rule off of the tee is to hit the ball as far as possible. This agrees with the USGA’s initial research that indicated the lack of correlation between hitting fairways and winning golf tournaments. It also agrees with research I have done – even before the USGA proposed grooves regulation.

Therefore, if golf is a distance game and hitting fairways do not matter, then players feel more confident hitting their approaches from closer to the hole and in the rough than from the fairway and further back. In effect, this eliminates a crucial skill of the game from the equation. What is to blame for that? The USGA evidence suggests, and I agree, that golf club grooves allow players to spin the golf ball better in tandem with current golf ball technology.

Current U grooves allows players to have better control over shots from the rough and, combined with distance gains, lets them play with a shorter club in their hands. Regulating the size and shape of those grooves will reduce professionals’ ability to control the ball from the rough. The stated hope of the USGA and R&A is that this will restore the importance of rough in tournament play. While that may be true, that stated hope is missing the point.

The real goal of this regulation should be that players would be encourage to put the ball in the fairway more often. On the eve of the PGA Championship, Trevor Immelman spoke very candidly about the reaction professionals will have to this regulation and spoke about how players will pursue shorter drives to put the ball in the fairway. In effect, this regulation could move the needle on the PGA Tour data I analyzed earlier this year. Players will leave distance on the table to avoid the rough and have ball control from the fairway. They will leave distance on the table by switching to a softer golf ball that will allow them better control from the rough than current golf balls. This is de facto golf ball regulation, and that is what I wanted in the first place.

This regulation is not perfect, though. After all, this regulation is reactionary. It is not proactive. With an 18 month window before this formal announcement of acceptance, and another 18 months before implementation at the professional ranks, the golf manufacturers may have sufficient time to develop golf balls that respond to the new grooves in a very similar fashion to the existing standard of U grooves. Basically, the manufacturers could out-maneuver the USGA and R&A before the standard even becomes enforced.

Immelman also spoke about how his sponsor, Nike, is already working on a golf ball that will allow multi-piece distance and control in conjunction with V grooves. No wonder a lawsuit is not imminent from the manufacturers. They would rather spend money beating the rule than fighting it.

If that does happen, and the manufacturers dupe the ruling bodies, then the USGA and R&A will be left with little recourse but to regulate the golf ball more than it does today. Fortunately for the ruling bodies, they have set a precedent for working with the manufacturers to design regulation and work out the kinks before implementation. They could do so again for regulation of the golf ball, if needed, and manage to avoid the massive lawsuit that causes the USGA to save money hand over fist.

In the end, this is a positive step forward for professional golf. No matter how we get to the end result, it will help restore skill to the game that is missing today.

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.

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?

There is a NY Times piece on some research conducted by Mark Broadie – a Columbia University professor on the USGA’s handicap research team – that leads to the conclusion that the long game is more important than the short game.

Here are some of his findings:

• It is the long game that proves to be the biggest factor when examining the difference in scores between pros and amateurs and even between low- and high-handicap amateurs. If, for example, a PGA Tour player were available to hit shots for an amateur from 100 yards and in, or available to hit all the shots leading to the 100-yard mark, Broadie says the amateur would benefit the most from having the PGA player hit the long shots, not the short ones.
• Despite the belief that shorter hitters are more accurate off the tee than longer hitters, Broadie discovered the opposite: longer hitters also tend to be straighter hitters. “Better players are more skilled over all,” Broadie said. “They hit it farther and they have more consistent swings, so they’re more accurate, too.”
• It is often said that 60 to 65 percent of all shots are struck within 100 yards of the hole. Broadie agreed but noted that if you take out “gimme” putts of two and a half feet, the statistic has less meaning. Remove very short putts that are rarely missed, and shots from 100 yards or less account for only 45 to 50 percent of all shots. Eliminate putts from three and a half feet or less, and the figure drops to 41 to 47 percent.

It’s quite a contrarian point of view given that we have been claiming that putting has been winning the major championships. The Masters is all about putting, supposedly. The US Open is about putting in more recent years. The PGA Championship and Open Championships have it as a crucial factor.

The USGA claims that there is almost no correlation between winning on the PGA Tour and driving accuracy. I have produced articles that reach the same conclusion. The implication behind that truth is that we should regulate how the ball plays from the rough because distance and accuracy really do not matter all that much – therefore, we need to regulate the approach shot.

But, what if this is a rock solid finding? It would imply, then, that distance and accuracy do matter, right? If distance and accuracy do matter, but the data suggest that accuracy doesn’t matter, then does ONLY distance matter? (That’s a stretch, I know.)

Still, at the end of this, I am left wondering whether we should be regulating the golf ball for distance because it seems then that it has serious implication on success in the game.

David Fay was part of a press conference with Mike Davis and others from the USGA at Interlachen. Finally, someone asked about grooves and what in the world is going on with them and the regulation.

Q. David, could we get an update on the groove situation? Wasn’t that due for some sort of roll out in January, I think, in theory? Has there been any developments on that front or are we going to have to all change irons?

DAVID FAY: The latest update is there’s no update. We are still on track, we hope. There are a number of components that we have to get everything resolved. A number of — and we’re moving ahead on that. But to give you a timetable at this time, it would be premature.

As you could expect, we are not going for bifurcation between the governing bodies and it is nice to hear the USGA reassure us of that. I think Fay’s response is a window into the problems, though, challenging the change. The manufacturers push back, Peter Dawson keeps butchering Open rota courses in the interim (and LOVES it!), etc. It’s tough to get the stars to align.

Interlachen is a bit of an unusual setup for a national championship. Coming off of Torrey, though, everything Mike Davis does is as pretty as a bouquet of long stems. The US Women’s Open course is setup to be a par 73 – a rare standard for par. Then again, lately we’ve been beginning to question to real meaning of par in professional golf.

Still, you can expect the normal Open features of tiered rough, fast greens, etc. But Davis has also set up Interlachen with 5 par 5s, probably to the benefit of lengthy hitters since 3 are reachable. He also has several short par 4s which are quickly becoming the Davis trademark. All in all, it should provide for some good “scoring” even though par has been artificially set in that regard.

This 63rd US Women’s Open will be the longest layout to host the event ever. Interlachen will play to 6789 yards; 40 yards longer than the previous longest (Cherry Hills – 2005). BUT, it will play to a par 73 – allowing for additional scoring opportunities, and realistically making this course not the longest examination ever.

I found this interesting about the fairways and rough:

COURSE LAYOUT – The fairways will range in width from approximately 24 to 33 yards. On either side of the fairways, a 6-foot wide swath of intermediate rough running the length of each hole will be set to 1½ inches. Then, there will be an 11-foot band of first cut of primary rough (height to be determined) and a second cut of deepest rough left and right of the landing areas (height to be determined). The greens will be set to run at 11½ feet on the Stimpmeter for the duration of the championship.

Generous fairways by Open standards, and a running trend in the Davis era. Also, the graduated rough will be here. Note, though, that the course will play 2.5 to 3 feet less on the Stimpmeter than for the US Open at Torrey Pines.

Also, beware that there is no 18 hole playoff format for the Women’s Open. It is a three hole aggregate playoff like the PGA Championship. That format was instituted in 2007. Annika was the last woman to win the playoff in the 18 hole format, though. She beat Pat Hurst in 2006.

As for TV coverage, the first two days are on ESPN – Thursday from 12-4p EDT, Friday from 3-7p EDT. NBC takes over on the weekend from 3-6p EDT each day.

You can find all of this information at USWomensOpen.com. Take a look at it and tell me if you find it to be pandering a little too much to the fact that this is a women’s event.

It all comes out of a San Diego Union-Tribune piece by Tim Sullivan.

First, some news on future US Open sites in 2016-2018.

Mark your calendars for June 2018. Mark them in pencil, though, because the invitation has just been issued and the approval process can be prolonged.

The next two Open openings, in 2016 and 2017, are expected to be filled by Oakmont Country Club, the suburban Pittsburgh site of the 2007 Open, and the new Erin Hills (Wis.) Golf Course, site of the 2011 U.S. Amateur.

The USGA will consider those courses at its October championships and executive committee meetings in New Jersey. Based on the commercial and theatrical success of the 108th Open, however, Torrey Pines could also be considered for fast-track approval.

Of course, none of this is set in stone. The clubs have to negotiate with the USGA and come to an agreement for an official announcement to be made. Also, in the case of Torrey, the city of San Diego has to agree to the contract as well as various side organizations that are related to Torrey – no Friends of Torrey Pines this time, though. Just the hotels and such. Keep your fingers crossed, San Diego, and stay classy.

Then Sullivan shifts his conversation with David B. Fay, executive director of the USGA, to revenues and payments. Apparently, he is not too happy with Jon Show’s reporting of the profits of the US Open.

Whether auditors will conclude that the city broke even on the 2008 Open will depend on the size of their imagination. The city stands to collect only $500,000 in cash for an event that could be worth up to $50 million in profits to the USGA, according to Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal.

Though Fay says that estimate is a distortion – “the guy who parsed the numbers together for Sports Business should receive an advanced degree for making accounting a creative art!” he wrote – the USGA typically books enough profit to pay millions to the Open site.

Unfortunately, though, no where in the piece does Show mention anything about payments to the city or the Friends of Torrey Pines. Actually, the piece that talked about how the city of San Diego was getting ripped off was reported in the Union-Tribune. The city may only get $500K, but the total payout comes close to $6 million. About 12% of the Open’s profits were given back to the course or the city.

Keep in mind, though, that the Friends of Torrey Pines was an organization created specifically for being the intermediary negotiating between the city of San Diego and the USGA. And they got $5.37 million from the USGA. The city got $500,000 plus another $700,000 in reimbursement for expenses and public safety. Unfortunately, though, the city put in a whole lot more than that.

Meantime, the city’s golf enterprise fund will make no direct money from the U.S. Open, while about $3 million has been spent on projects related to the Open, according to Golf Manager Mark Woodward. That work includes the acquisition and installation of one million square feet of kikuyu turf, the moving of trees, repainting the clubhouse and restrooms, and the construction of new cart paths to minimize damage to the grass.

Also, the problem with the Friends of Torrey Pines has been detailed in the past, but some may have forgotten it. So, let me rehash it. It all starts with the Chris Millard piece that ripped a new one into Walter Driver:

One current example of this trend is the case of Cameron Jay Rains. Rains is the co-chairman of the 2008 U.S. Open at Torrey Pines. He is also a member (since 2003) of the executive committee. This circumvents the time-honored practice in which local championship chairs report to USGA staff. When asked whether the arrangement presents a conflict, Driver says, “He was the chair of the ‘08 Open before he came on the executive committee, and we essentially screened him off from any potential conflict.” Pressed to admit Rains’ dual interests could at least raise some eyebrows, Driver is dismissive. “Doesn’t work that way,” he insists.

Some observers aren’t so sure. “The person negotiating on behalf of the city of San Diego [Rains] is also on the USGA executive committee,” says Shackelford. “He’s on both sides of the table. So when San Diego [officials] want to know how many hats were sold and what their cut of the revenue is, this isn’t a problem? Who is [Rains] looking out for? It’s just astonishing.”

In the end, Rains did raise about $3.5 million through the creation of Friends of Torrey Pines for various course projects that eventually led to the Open coming to Torrey. This was private capital, though. That private capital investment is being paid off by the USGA in the form of $5.37 million. In effect, they will make a $600K profit from their investment.

The funny thing is that they estimated last year that they would make $2 million less – a break even investment, so to speak:

Rains said this week he believes the Friends of Torrey Pines will receive about $3.5 million from the Open – $2.5 million in corporate sales and the $950,000 the city reimbursed it for the South’s reconstruction.

It almost sounds a loss of money here for the FOTP because of the $1.2 million that goes back to the city from the Friends. The Union-Tribune reported the $5.37 million number from Rains the week of the Open:

The Friends reported they would receive $5.37 million from the Open, largely from rent payments and corporate hospitality shares through the USGA. Most of that – $3.4 million – will go back to the families and businesses that paid for the renovation of the South Course in 2001. They have said they will contribute that money to charity.

There is no legal obligation for the 30 investors that make up the Friends to donate the money to charity. I suppose they could consider it reimbursement for their investment. Still, this means that the city will lose a few million dollars on the deal with the USGA. And, as I read it, it also means that the Friends will make back their investment plus $600K. Basically, money that could have gone to pad the cost for San Diego will go to private hands instead. That is a solid return on investment for Friends of Torrey Pines – almost 20%.

And I will close with a quote from a Tod Leonard piece already quoted in this post from Rains:

“The money that comes back will be given to charity,” Rains said. “I don’t want anybody to say we made money off a public golf course.”

Though Rains said he will leave it up to the individual donors on how they donate their share, he intends to encourage funding a project that will enhance the experience for city golfers. He said he could not be more specific at this time.

So, what about that $600K again? And going from a $1.2 million loss to a $600K profit in the course of a year?

…that got out of hand really quickly.

I know that the Open is over and we should be talking about the Travelers Championship – yeah, right. But I wanted to have one last post on the entire Open experience.

Geoff Shackelford has a couple of nice posts with reviews of his experience and they seemed largely positive (not talking about course design here).

Here’s his post on the experience, and one the Championship Vision mini TVs provided by American Express (or at least sponsored by them). The TVs are very similar to the ones used at the Players Championship, but are by RCA instead of Kangaroo TV.

You’ve heard me, the players, and the media in attendance rave about the course setup. Mike Davis has really set the bar for major championship setup. In fact, I think he is the inspiration behind a second set of tees that I bet will be coming to Augusta National for next year’s Masters. I would also mention that the PGA Championship was really the gold standard for setup until Davis came along – fair, but tough. Davis borrowed from that setup, added his own elements (tiered rough among them), and had the Open setup at his disposal to create a great experience.

I came into the Mike Davis era ranking the US Open as my least favorite major to watch. After this year, it has skyrocketed to second place. Nothing is going to change my mind about the Open Championship, sorry.

How about you? Is the USGA changing your mind about their feature championship?

At least it is according to Bob DiCesare at the Buffalo News.

A sudden-death playoff Sunday just wouldn’t have been the same. A four-hole aggregate showdown, the format employed at the British Open, would have missed the mark. It makes perfect sense that when our national championship ends in a tie it should be determined over another round played the next day, with the deadlocked golfers starting anew. The full-round format cancels Sunday momentum and allows the anticipation to build.

Thankfully, the United States Golf Association remains firm on this issue, refusing to budge on behalf of television and viewer preferences.

[T]he USGA continues to honor our national championship by demanding a full-scale playoff. It won’t always result in the most compelling matchups, but one Woods-Mediate duel in a lifetime makes it all worthwhile.

I think DiCesare is coming from a short-sighted of the 18 hole playoff in the history of the US Open. In the history of the US Open, more playoffs are uninteresting than classics. The last one in 2001 between Retief Goosen and Mark Brooks ended in Goosen winning by two with a round of even par. Even something that close is not remembered very fondly – and those guys finished under par!

There are a few in relatively recent memory, though, that do stand up to the Woods-Mediate classic. In 1994, at Oakmont, Ernie Els beat Loren Roberts on the 92nd hole of the championship after disposing of Colin Montgomerie at the 90th. At Medinah in 1990, Hale Irwin beat Mike Donald by a shot in the famous hand-slapping victory.

The others of note are only of note because of the incredible upset involved (Fleck v. Hogan in 1955 and Ouimet in 1913 to put golf on the US map), or because of the legends involved (Trevino/Nicklaus in ‘72, Nicklaus/Palmer in ‘62 for the changing of the guard).

In effect, it is a crapshoot as to whether or not the playoff format works in practice. It has to have a close match and a great or infamous golfer involved for it to be remembered. Fortunately, though, this playoff had that and will go down as spectacular.

I do want to break up a misconception about this year’s playoff, though, that came up in the piece and blogger Phil Capelle’s yesterday.

There was one glitch in the Woods-Mediate showdown, and it came when the playoff extended beyond the 18-hole playoff. Instead of returning to hole No. 1, which would be standard course, the round continued at No. 7. Woods had struggled on No. 1 much of the week, making double bogey there three times. Conversely, No. 7, a monster par 4, put Mediate at a distinct disadvantage because of its length.

The sudden death holes were not rigged in Woods’ favor. 7, 8, and 18 made an easy, repeatable loop around Torrey Pines South and that is why there were the sudden death holes. It was not because Mike Davis wanted Tiger to win. These were chosen long in advance of the championship based on course logistics and not the potential players involved.