Another FT golf column.
Some pics (including some from Thorpeness):
Friday, 31 October 2008
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
What Is the USPGA's Thing?
It might not have had the asset of Tiger Woods, but only the terminally churlish could claim that the 2008 USPGA Championship lacked the ingredients of a “proper” major championship. In terms of adrenaline-fuelled shotmaking and down-to-the-wire intrigue, not one of the year’s other three majors quite matched it. I would like to think that this might help to finally lift it out of the shadows of the Masters, The US Open and The Open in the minds of the general populace, but I have a feeling it won’t.
Nine decades into its history, The USPGA remains The Major Golf Championship Your Grandma Hasn’t Heard Of (provided, of course, that your grandma doesn’t happen to be Barb Nicklaus). It’s the lone major where, asked to name one of its winners from the recent past, the average TV golf nut will not usually have instant recall. “Who won it in 1997?” I found myself wondering frustratingly the other day. I had to look up the answer, and realised with a bit of a jolt that it was one of my favourite golfers of all-time, Davis Love III. Think Masters and think Augusta, think US Open and think cruelty, think Open and think links, but it’s hard to put your finger on quite what makes the USPGA distinctive. The inclusion of everyday American club pros does not significantly affect the character of the tournament, so, were you to be asked by a newcomer to define the tournament, you’d probably find yourself scrambling slightly: “Well… it’s normally played in quite hot weather. Oh yes! And it’s got a really big trophy!”
There was a time when the PGA could be relied on as often as not to be won by journeyman pros in fairly forgettable fashion, but since Sergio Garcia’s famous “tree shot” to the eighteenth at Medinah in 1999, it’s been pretty much - Shaun Micheel’s 2003 victory being an exception - top level entertainment all the way. But, somewhat paradoxically, it’s actually the more recent years, when the USPGA has been a better tournament, that have served to most clearly highlight its lack of one significant distinguishing feature. The fact that the USPGA is now a great tournament that brings out the best in the best players makes its lack of kudos more of a glaring, niggling enigma.
It strikes me that, ultimately, what the USPGA needs is a Thing. I’m not talking about a sexual appendage here: that would be obscene, and is hardly the kind of thing anyone would want to see sticking up out of the hallowed fairways of Hazeltine National or Sahalee Country Club. What I mean is that, for many years, Tom Selleck was just an ordinary, strikingly handsome second-rate TV star, then he grew a moustache, and suddenly he had his Thing. At one point, Jesper Parnevik was merely an everyday, Swedish baseball-wearing tour pro with an occasional habit of jumping into icy lakes after winning tournaments, then he met Johan Lindeberg, who told him to turn the peak of the cap up at the front, and he had his Thing. With a Thing invariably comes widespread recognition: just ask Eddie “The Eagle” Edwards, or the fruit juice manufacturer who suddenly decided to make pomegranates cool.
The PGA does not quite seem to have the same store of classic, enduring golfing images as its peer tournaments, so over the last nine years, it’s clung to Sergio’s tree shot somewhat, reshowing footage of it around 369 times during TV coverage of every USPGA since it, but one single shot cannot shoulder the burden of being a tournament’s Thing. With Larry Mize’s 1987 chip-in against Greg Norman as its Thing, The Masters would not be The Masters. With Doug Sanders’s missed tiddler at St Andrews in 1970 as its Thing, The Open would not be The Open. Until 1958, when it changed its format to strokeplay, the fact that the USPGA was matchplay was its thing, but at the moment its problem is that its Thing, if anything, is that it’s the least prestigious major. Simply using the tagline “Glory’s Last Shot” doesn’t really sell it. It needs something more potent, and, during those moments of Garcia and Harrington’s final round duel at Oakland Hills that were too tense to watch, I jotted down a few suggestions. These included:
1. Start Playing On Horseback.
We have polo, so why not golfo as well?
Possible upside: Might provide a big enough controversy to make any “USPGA isn’t a proper major” issues fade into the background.
Possible downside: Distressing scene involving World Horse Welfare might ensue if Woody Austin’s temper becomes a factor.
2. Get An Even Bigger Trophy.
At the moment, The USPGA has a big trophy, donated by early 20th Century aviation pioneer Rodman Wanamaker, but if you compare a photograph of someone holding it, taken from thirty feet away, to a close-up of someone holding the US Open trophy, they don’t look all that different.
Possible upside: “Biggest trophy, biggest tournament” subtext planted in public’s minds.
Possible downside: Freak return to form for Ian Woosnam might lead to damaging “Silverware Squashes Golfer” press coverage.
3. Have Jelly In The Bunkers Instead Of Sand
An innovation that would almost certain silence those who complain that pros have reduced bunkers to being anything but “traps”, or that American bunkers are homogenous and unimaginative.
Possible upside: Could introduce winning moments of levity in tournament’s final stages.
Possible downside: If John Daly is ever going to get back to form and fitness and capture a second title, the last thing he needs tempting him after an errant iron-shot is a big pit full of tasty treats.
4. Make It A Pitch And Putt Tournament
Don’t you just love watching those clips of the par three tournament before the Masters? Don’t you wish you could see more? Would there really be anything wrong with an entire tournament, complete with World Ranking Points and large prize money, played along similar lines?
Possible upside: Would take long-hitting out of the equation.
Possible downside: Would take long-hitting out of the equation.
Out of these, I find myself leaning most strongly towards the last hypothesis. At this year’s USPGA, the talk was all about how brutally the course had been set up. A player could hit a great shot to the green, bounce a yard too far, and end up in a virtually unplayable lie. The eighteenth, meanwhile, had been moulded and lengthened into arguably the most remorseless finishing hole in major championship history. Perhaps the USPGA was trying to outdo the US Open, but in doing so it just made itself look even more like the tournament’s less noticeable younger brother: yet another very tricked-up, stamina-sapping golf event. It’s no surprise that, in the Sky Sports commentary box, as Ben Curtis lined up a chip, Butch Harmon mistakenly announced: “If he can get this up and down he’ll be leading the Open Championship.” And, since Butch is American, he wasn’t talking about our Open. It’s not enough for the USPGA that it’s played on the same courses as it’s home country’s national championship (this year’s USPGA venue, Oakland Hills, has held six US Opens), it seems to want to operate on the same par-is-pain aesthetic. What it really needs to do, perhaps, is go completely the other way.
Okay, so par three golf would probably be taking matters too far, but why not play the USPGA on significantly shorter courses? Somewhere between, say, 6200 yards and 6600? There’d be lots of birdies, and no doubt lots of comments from officials about the course being “humiliated” but would the entertainment really be diminished? How many people really complained that it was boring when Tiger Woods reduced Augusta’s 15th to a drive and a wedge in 1997, or in the days when so many birdies and eagles would pop into the hole on the final day at the Masters and Open that a person would often need to go outside and take a breath of fresh air, for fear of hyperventilating?
Is it really we – the viewers – who feel wronged when big tournaments result in players finishing 17, 19, 23 under par, or is it just a few men in suits with too much time on their hands? By breaking the modern trend of fighting equipment with terrain, the USPGA might find The Thing it is definitely looking for, and had it taken the same approach at Oakland Hills this year, I cannot believe we would have seen a significantly less interesting tournament. The only difference, in my case, might have been the eradication of the little, devilish voice in my head, as I watched Sergio Garcia come down the home stretch. The one that, even though it wanted Garcia desperately to win, could not stop itself from whispering: “But are you sure this should be that momentous first major victory? After all, it’s only the USPGA.”
Nine decades into its history, The USPGA remains The Major Golf Championship Your Grandma Hasn’t Heard Of (provided, of course, that your grandma doesn’t happen to be Barb Nicklaus). It’s the lone major where, asked to name one of its winners from the recent past, the average TV golf nut will not usually have instant recall. “Who won it in 1997?” I found myself wondering frustratingly the other day. I had to look up the answer, and realised with a bit of a jolt that it was one of my favourite golfers of all-time, Davis Love III. Think Masters and think Augusta, think US Open and think cruelty, think Open and think links, but it’s hard to put your finger on quite what makes the USPGA distinctive. The inclusion of everyday American club pros does not significantly affect the character of the tournament, so, were you to be asked by a newcomer to define the tournament, you’d probably find yourself scrambling slightly: “Well… it’s normally played in quite hot weather. Oh yes! And it’s got a really big trophy!”
There was a time when the PGA could be relied on as often as not to be won by journeyman pros in fairly forgettable fashion, but since Sergio Garcia’s famous “tree shot” to the eighteenth at Medinah in 1999, it’s been pretty much - Shaun Micheel’s 2003 victory being an exception - top level entertainment all the way. But, somewhat paradoxically, it’s actually the more recent years, when the USPGA has been a better tournament, that have served to most clearly highlight its lack of one significant distinguishing feature. The fact that the USPGA is now a great tournament that brings out the best in the best players makes its lack of kudos more of a glaring, niggling enigma.
It strikes me that, ultimately, what the USPGA needs is a Thing. I’m not talking about a sexual appendage here: that would be obscene, and is hardly the kind of thing anyone would want to see sticking up out of the hallowed fairways of Hazeltine National or Sahalee Country Club. What I mean is that, for many years, Tom Selleck was just an ordinary, strikingly handsome second-rate TV star, then he grew a moustache, and suddenly he had his Thing. At one point, Jesper Parnevik was merely an everyday, Swedish baseball-wearing tour pro with an occasional habit of jumping into icy lakes after winning tournaments, then he met Johan Lindeberg, who told him to turn the peak of the cap up at the front, and he had his Thing. With a Thing invariably comes widespread recognition: just ask Eddie “The Eagle” Edwards, or the fruit juice manufacturer who suddenly decided to make pomegranates cool.
The PGA does not quite seem to have the same store of classic, enduring golfing images as its peer tournaments, so over the last nine years, it’s clung to Sergio’s tree shot somewhat, reshowing footage of it around 369 times during TV coverage of every USPGA since it, but one single shot cannot shoulder the burden of being a tournament’s Thing. With Larry Mize’s 1987 chip-in against Greg Norman as its Thing, The Masters would not be The Masters. With Doug Sanders’s missed tiddler at St Andrews in 1970 as its Thing, The Open would not be The Open. Until 1958, when it changed its format to strokeplay, the fact that the USPGA was matchplay was its thing, but at the moment its problem is that its Thing, if anything, is that it’s the least prestigious major. Simply using the tagline “Glory’s Last Shot” doesn’t really sell it. It needs something more potent, and, during those moments of Garcia and Harrington’s final round duel at Oakland Hills that were too tense to watch, I jotted down a few suggestions. These included:
1. Start Playing On Horseback.
We have polo, so why not golfo as well?
Possible upside: Might provide a big enough controversy to make any “USPGA isn’t a proper major” issues fade into the background.
Possible downside: Distressing scene involving World Horse Welfare might ensue if Woody Austin’s temper becomes a factor.
2. Get An Even Bigger Trophy.
At the moment, The USPGA has a big trophy, donated by early 20th Century aviation pioneer Rodman Wanamaker, but if you compare a photograph of someone holding it, taken from thirty feet away, to a close-up of someone holding the US Open trophy, they don’t look all that different.
Possible upside: “Biggest trophy, biggest tournament” subtext planted in public’s minds.
Possible downside: Freak return to form for Ian Woosnam might lead to damaging “Silverware Squashes Golfer” press coverage.
3. Have Jelly In The Bunkers Instead Of Sand
An innovation that would almost certain silence those who complain that pros have reduced bunkers to being anything but “traps”, or that American bunkers are homogenous and unimaginative.
Possible upside: Could introduce winning moments of levity in tournament’s final stages.
Possible downside: If John Daly is ever going to get back to form and fitness and capture a second title, the last thing he needs tempting him after an errant iron-shot is a big pit full of tasty treats.
4. Make It A Pitch And Putt Tournament
Don’t you just love watching those clips of the par three tournament before the Masters? Don’t you wish you could see more? Would there really be anything wrong with an entire tournament, complete with World Ranking Points and large prize money, played along similar lines?
Possible upside: Would take long-hitting out of the equation.
Possible downside: Would take long-hitting out of the equation.
Out of these, I find myself leaning most strongly towards the last hypothesis. At this year’s USPGA, the talk was all about how brutally the course had been set up. A player could hit a great shot to the green, bounce a yard too far, and end up in a virtually unplayable lie. The eighteenth, meanwhile, had been moulded and lengthened into arguably the most remorseless finishing hole in major championship history. Perhaps the USPGA was trying to outdo the US Open, but in doing so it just made itself look even more like the tournament’s less noticeable younger brother: yet another very tricked-up, stamina-sapping golf event. It’s no surprise that, in the Sky Sports commentary box, as Ben Curtis lined up a chip, Butch Harmon mistakenly announced: “If he can get this up and down he’ll be leading the Open Championship.” And, since Butch is American, he wasn’t talking about our Open. It’s not enough for the USPGA that it’s played on the same courses as it’s home country’s national championship (this year’s USPGA venue, Oakland Hills, has held six US Opens), it seems to want to operate on the same par-is-pain aesthetic. What it really needs to do, perhaps, is go completely the other way.
Okay, so par three golf would probably be taking matters too far, but why not play the USPGA on significantly shorter courses? Somewhere between, say, 6200 yards and 6600? There’d be lots of birdies, and no doubt lots of comments from officials about the course being “humiliated” but would the entertainment really be diminished? How many people really complained that it was boring when Tiger Woods reduced Augusta’s 15th to a drive and a wedge in 1997, or in the days when so many birdies and eagles would pop into the hole on the final day at the Masters and Open that a person would often need to go outside and take a breath of fresh air, for fear of hyperventilating?
Is it really we – the viewers – who feel wronged when big tournaments result in players finishing 17, 19, 23 under par, or is it just a few men in suits with too much time on their hands? By breaking the modern trend of fighting equipment with terrain, the USPGA might find The Thing it is definitely looking for, and had it taken the same approach at Oakland Hills this year, I cannot believe we would have seen a significantly less interesting tournament. The only difference, in my case, might have been the eradication of the little, devilish voice in my head, as I watched Sergio Garcia come down the home stretch. The one that, even though it wanted Garcia desperately to win, could not stop itself from whispering: “But are you sure this should be that momentous first major victory? After all, it’s only the USPGA.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
