The NCGA’s all-new Poppy Ridge debuts May 31

Very few AGAs (1) in the United States own and operate their own golf course; in fact, only four (the NCGA, and the Oregon, Washington, and Colorado AGAs) do so, and of those four only one—the Northern California Golf Association—owns and operates two courses. Those two courses—Poppy Hills, in the Del Monte Forest on the Monterey Peninsula; and Poppy Ridge, in the midst of the vineyards and golden hills of the Livermore Valley in Contra Costa County—present two very different golf experiences encompassing the wide range of landscapes that comprise “NCGA territory”.

Poppy Hills, which opened in 1986, was the first course in the country to be built and operated by an AGA. The wooded property, which is also home to NCGA headquarters, underwent a major renovation in 2014 that improved drainage across the entire property, reduced irrigated acreage, and replaced the late-1980s-vintage irrigation system with a modern system. Now Poppy Hills’ ten-years younger sibling, Poppy Ridge, which drapes across a rolling landscape of golden hills and lush green vineyards southeast of the City of Livermore, is reopening after an even more comprehensive reworking that has resulted in what is essentially an entirely new course.

The 17th green at the new Poppy Ridge gleams in “golden hour” sunlight, overlooked by rolling hills and the soaring wind turbines that line a distant ridge. (photo credit: Joann Dost)

 

 “If you were to ask people what is a postcard of California wine country, this would be it – Jay Blasi

The new Poppy Ridge will be an eye-opener for players who were familiar with the 1996 Rees Jones layout. The original 1996 design was made up of three nine-hole loops—appropriately named Chardonnay, Merlot, and Zinfandel. This configuration allowed flexibility and variety for the golfers who came to play there, but suffered from compromises in routing and terrain that made walking the course untenable for most golfers, and could lead to time-consuming rounds of golf. The new layout, designed by course architect Jay Blasi based on guidelines provided by the NCGA, has what I consider to be a more sensible use of 27 holes of golf; it now consists of an 18-hole championship layout and the Ridge 9, a nine-hole course with seven par-4 holes and a pair of par-3s.

“We basically started over, and we built a new golf course on top of a site that used to have a golf course.” – Jay Blasi

The new layout is so different from the 1996 design that even longtime course employees have had to relearn their way around the property. Players familiar with the old Poppy Ridge will note that the 18-hole course is laid out over territory that comprised the Zinfandel nine and part of Chardonnay, mostly north of the clubhouse, while the Ridge 9 encompasses part of what used to be the Merlot nine and some of Chardonnay.

Toned Down, But Still Challenging

One of Jay Blasi’s main goals for the redesign was to improve walkability on the new 18-hole championship layout. While still a hilly course, walking 18-holes at around 6500 yards (the blue tees) is now some 2,000 yards shorter than the original setup, with 400 feet less elevation change overall.

Reworking the routing to tighten and smooth the transitions between holes involved moving some 250,000 cubic yards of soil. In many cases moving that volume of earth is done to add, or increase, contouring, but in this case that work was done, as Blasi told me, “…to soften the property, to make those transitions more manageable and easier to walk. We weren’t moving dirt to make things more exciting; the landscape was already big and beautiful and exciting—we were doing it to kind of tone it down a bit and make it more suitable for golf.”

There’s no denying that the Poppy Ridge property is a dramatic and dynamic piece of landscape on which to build a golf course. It is a property of rolling hills on which some holes rise to meet you, some lay out in front of you in full view, and others test your faith with a blind second shot. It is also criss-crossed with deeper cuts, such as the area where the drop-off-a-cliff par-three 17th hole was built. Playing at distances ranging between 154 yards from the championship (orange) tees to a mere 67 yards from the most forward tees (green), the vertical aspect of this dramatic little one-shotter will challenge a player’s club-selection skills. Its neighbor, the par-three 14th, teases with an uphill carry—more so from the forward tees—over an area of native growth; a friendly hillside to the left of the green is a safe aiming strategy for the daring carry on this hole.

Another of the goals for the new course was to make it fun and playable for all levels of golfers. Compared to the old course there is less water in play, and less sand in play. The fairways are wide and accommodating, but careful attention to placement for the approach shot will pay off, and most of the greens are open at the front to allow the ball to be run up onto the green—flying it high and landing it soft will not be the only option for hitting and holding greens.

That’s not to say that the course will be a walkover for the more highly skilled player; once in position to go for the green, careful inspection of the contours around the greens will show that there is usually a safe side and a risky side, so skillful placement of your drive or second shot will often be key to having a safer approach.

A good example of this is the par-four 6th hole, the first hole that I played during the recent preview day scramble. The fairway is wide and confidence-inspiring, as most of the fairways on the new course are, but you must be mindful of where you place your tee shot. A drive to the right side of the landing area yields an inviting approach to the green, while landing too far left leaves your approach shot blocked by mounding that leaves you facing a blind shot (2) to a (thankfully), generously sized green. In turn, the mound on the left side forms a backdrop that can help direct an overcooked approach shot, even from good position in the fairway, back onto the green.

The greens at Poppy Ridge are well-contoured, with challenging but not drastic shaping. An interesting design feature that applies to the greens as a whole is that their size relates to the difficulty of the approach shot—holes that are likely to require a long-iron approach have larger greens; those that are going to be taken on with a wedge or a short iron give the golfer a smaller target to aim at. It is risky to judge the greens of a brand-new golf course; they will always need some bedding-in time before their true character is revealed, but I think that golfers will find the greens at Poppy Ridge testing, but fair.

Teething Problems?

As I mentioned above, the new course is intended to be fun for all skill levels. Each hole features five teeing areas accommodating a range of standard yardages from 7,010 (orange) to 4,225 (green).While good in theory, my group—with one playing from the tips and three from the golds—found that the forward tees were stretched so far ahead of the longer tees that staying connected was problematic, and that, when playing from a cart, getting from the cart path to the gold or green tees often required trekking through native areas.

Another new-course teething issue that we encountered was confusion about the location of the teeing areas in the corner of the course where the 13th green, 14th tees, 18th green, and 17th tees are all clustered within a small and quite hilly area. Better signage and better definition of the teeing grounds themselves would go a long way toward eliminating confusion for players that are new to the course (as everyone will be in the near term.)

A Strong First Impression

Even with only one round on the new layout under my belt, I have already selected a favorite hole—the par-five 4th. This uphill three-shotter plays longer than the scorecard yardage thanks to the elevation gain, and while fairly straight, hands you a peek-a-boo second shot that teases the possibility of getting onto the green in two. A low, running shot with a fairway wood or hybrid might get you there if you thread the needle between a trio of smallish but well-placed bunkers placed right-left-right along the way to the putting surface. I hit one of my better 3-wood shots in recent memory on this hole and just caught the first, and largest, of those bunkers or I might have found myself, maybe not on the green in two, but certainly within Texas-wedge territory.

Windy conditions will be a testing proposition at this somewhat exposed course. It is dotted with native oak trees, but not lined with the fairway-defining rows of tall trees of a typical parkland course that would protect play from the wind. The green of the 4th and the entirety of the 16th hole are the highest points on the course, I believe, and special attention to the strength of the wind, especially in the afternoon, is warranted there.

“If you are an out-of-town guest, if you’re coming from the Midwest or the East Coast, I would venture to guess that two of your three best public options in Northern California are Poppy Ridge and Poppy Hills.” – Jay Blasi

Course designer Jay Blasi, the NCGA, and everyone associated with the creation of the new Poppy Ridge can be justifiably proud of this new course. It is a property that will take some familiarization to come to terms with, but I think that the variety of the golf holes, and of course the newness of the layout, will tempt players back again and again to build course knowledge and test strategies for assaying its dramatic landscape. It’s a good thing, then, that 60% of the NCGA’s membership lives within 60 miles of this stunning new addition to the bounteous variety of Northern California golf.

Poppy Ridge opens for play on May 31st, and the tee sheet is already full a few weeks out, but I urge everyone in the region to experience this new course as soon as they can.

*****************************
1) Allied Golf Associations, the local golf associations that collaborate with the USGA to support the game of golf in the country.

2) Despite a bit of friendly advice from the guide who led us out to the tees at #6, this is exactly what I did...

“Playing Dirty”, by Joel Beall – a “compare-and-contrast” examination of the current state of the game of golf ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️☆

Playing Dirty, by Golf Digest senior writer Joel Beall, is the newest book from the golf specialty publisher Back Nine Press. An intriguing mix of thoroughly researched investigative journalism and golf sentimentalism of the Golf in the Kingdom school of golf writing, it is a “compare-and-contrast” exercise between what might be seen as two wholly unrelated aspects of the game of golf.

The book combines a hard-news journalistic examination of the current state of men’s professional golf, specifically the effects of the influx of Saudi investment, with a somewhat dreamy-eyed look into the experience of the game as (when?) played in its ancestral homeland, Scotland. While I am myself essentially immune to the more spiritual side, if you will, of the golf experience, I deplore the grotesquely cynical approach that has been taken by the professional players who have taken the Saudi shekel, of which Joel Beall offers a concise examination.

The portions of the book that deal with the current kerfluffle in the men’s professional game are thorough, well presented, and obviously well researched—and while I for one have grown somewhat weary of reading about Saudi Arabia, the PIF, LIV Golf, and the current state of the seemingly unending negotiations between the PGA Tour and the golf-obsessed Saudi money-man Yasir Al-Rumayyan, I found a smile creeping across my face as I read the sections in Chapter 3 in which Beall skewers the LIV Golf membership, their tournament format, and the twisted rationalizations employed by the men who have taken Saudi blood money to participate in these farcical exhibitions; in these opinions we are brothers.

“LIV is a moral crisis masquerading as a golf league.”

   – Joel Beall, Playing Dirty

(You will note that I specifically define the affected aspect of the game as men’s professional golf, because for all the bandying about of the well-worn phrase “growing the game” in LIV Golf communications and the scripted diatribes delivered by LIV Golf members, it is only men’s professional golf that is affected. There is no aspect of this issue that has any impact whatsoever on the recreational game of golf as it is played by millions of people all over the world, beyond, perhaps, arguments over post-round drinks.

Not only that, but a clear-eyed assessment of the supposed “rupture” of men’s professional golf can only come to the conclusion that it is a tempest in a teapot, an over-reaction by Jay Monahan and the PGA Tour leadership to the departure of a handful of mostly fading former stars and the pick-up of some unproven newbies who lacked confidence in their abilities to make the grade in the meritocracy-based pro game as it is played on the PGA Tour.)

As for the other side of the coin: the “hie me away to the misty links” portions of the book, well, this is the bread and butter of the folks at Back Nine Press and an area where our viewpoints diverge somewhat (see my review of their 2022 release Swing, Walk, Repeat by Jay Revell.)

Beall hits the reader with this stuff right from the get-go, in the introduction, starting up with the story of an itinerant seeker-after-truth named Hess (“just Hess”) who dabbles in real estate and personal training to support his true purpose in life—playing golf. This side of the book segues into examinations of, among other things: the differences between golf in the United States and in Scotland, caddies, lists of the greatest golf courses in Scotland, descriptions of the aforementioned great courses (and others that didn’t quite make the cut), the joys of and proper ways to conduct a Scottish golf pilgrimage, etc., etc., etc. …

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to take my golf clubs to Scotland. It is, after all, the land of (some of) my ancestors, the origin of my surname, and the birthplace of the game—and I have enough of a sense of history to acknowledge the importance of that last fact. What wears me down is the insistence on attributing an air of mystical importance to the experience, a practice which I attribute to a man with whom I share a hometown—fellow Salinas, California native Michael Murphy, the author of the aforementioned Golf in the Kingdom.

Murphy’s book originated the idea of “golf’s mystical journey”, perhaps as a counterpoint to the aspirational country-club ideal of golf as the game was interpreted when it came to the United States. While golf is an everyman’s game in Scotland, and despite the fact that 75% of the golf courses in this country are open to the public either as daily-fee or municipal facilities, the non-golfing public-at-large in the United States view golf as an elitist, members-only activity for RWMs (Rich White Men). It is an image that has proven to be difficult to shake, and in the wake of the popularity of Michael Murphy’s pretentious little tome, many a golf writer has swung that pendulum to the other extreme, extolling the mystical, soul-healing qualities of this crazy game especially when played in Scotland.

Despite my impatience with tales of healing journeys to the mystical homeland of golf, I recognize the counterpoint comparison that the author is making in this book when he contrasts that side of the game, as pursued and experienced by devoted amateurs, to the cynical and unholy, if you will, pursuit of more money than a person could reasonably want or need, by professional golfers.

In Playing Dirty Joel Beall has, I believe, drawn a thoughtful comparison between two widely disparate aspects of the game of golf, contrasting the pursuit of the pure enjoyment of the game by devoted (if somewhat obsessive?) amateurs with the stubbornly obdurate pursuit of obscene wealth, in total disregard of the moral objections to the source of that wealth, by professional players who have, in many cases, already profited enormously from their ability to play this maddening game at a high level.

This book captures a snapshot of the current landscape of the game of golf which will be appreciated by thoughtful students of the game, and looked to, I think, by future scholars of the history of golf.

Bob Harig’s “Tiger and Phil” now in paperback

If you are a fan of well-researched writing by a knowledgeable veteran golf writer and want to read about the years-long rivalry between two of the biggest names in pro golf of the last 20+ years—but prefer to wait for the less-expensive paperback copy of a new book to come out, you are in luck. Bob Harig, a long-time golf writer at ESPN, penned a comprehensive, deeply-researched book on the rivalry between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson that came out in 2022—and it is now (as of 16 April, 2023) out in softcover.

A comprehensive look at an enduring
rivalry, now in paperback.

The hardback edition of the book came out in 2022, after Woods’s solo-vehicle crash in February 2021 but before Phil Mickelson’s departure from the PGA Tour in favor of the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour, so it missed out on some of the most-current controversy in this rivalry. Frankly, I was a bit disappointed to not see an update chapter on the new developments in the softcover release.

Aside from that, Tiger & Phil is a very complete look at the sometimes fraught relationship between the two men who have most strongly defined PGA Tour golf in the 21st century—one a generally taciturn, frequently saturnine, presence on the golf course (and only when he couldn’t avoid it, in the media center interview room); the other a jovial, self-promoting—but sometimes sharp-tongued—raconteur who trailed in the shadow of the other. The book covers all aspects of the on-and off-course interactions between the two, from run-of-the-mill PGA Tour events to the majors, to special events like the Ryder Cup and the President’s Cup.

Curiously, I found the book to be rife with grammatical errors, clumsy sentence construction, and odd (sometimes incorrect) word choices. These are things that should have been caught in the editing process which may not bother, or even be noticed by, the casual reader, but as someone with editing experience I was tripping over them every couple of pages on average.

Minor writing blips aside, I am confident that anyone with an interest in the recent history of men’s professional golf will enjoy this book; it’s an important chronicle of the relationship and interactions of two of the most significant players in the closing years of the 20th century and the first quarter or so of the 21st.

What’s true—and what’s not—about what alignment stripes do for your putting

Under the dual headings of “Marketing People Just Want To Sell You Stuff” and “Golf Equipment Writers Who Recycle Manufacturers’ Marketing BUMF”, a recent article by an experienced and well-respected golf writer (whose BA in English Lit probably doesn’t qualify him to evaluate the dynamics and physical attributes of golf equipment) is promulgating more marketing nonsense from people who sell golf balls:

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2023/04/12/callaway-chrome-soft-360-triple-track-golf-balls/

Callaway’s update to their Triple Track alignment aid system,

Triple Track 360, features blue stripes that now go all the way around the ball.

The article at the link above, about the new and improved Callaway 360 Triple-Track system—which now features blue lines that go all the way around the ball (that is, 360º – get it?)—states the following:

“(T)he two blue lines […] wrap completely around the ball, making it easier for golfers to aim the ball […] and to see if a putt is struck with a square face. If the lines stay smooth as the putt rolls, a player knows [they] hit the putt correctly with the face square to the target line. If the lines wobble as the ball rolls, the face of the putter was either open or closed to the line when it struck the ball*.”

This kind of stuff makes me weep.

The Triple-Track system, with a single rather heavy red stripe flanked by a pair of thinner blue stripes, was originally presented as a revolutionary upgrade over a single line as a static alignment aid, a quality that is supposed to be due to an effect called Visual Hyper Acuity (see: How Triple Track Technology Can Change Your Game). The effectiveness of “VHA” is said to have been certified by Dr. Carl Bassi, the Director of Research at the University of Missouri – St Louis College of Optometry, and also by Ray Barrett, an “entrepreneur and avid golfer” (whoever he is, and for what that’s worth).

I can’t speak to the effectiveness of Triple Track markings in helping golfers achieve micrometer-level alignment accuracy—vision science is not one of my specialties—but I can speak to its effectiveness in helping golfers assess the quality of their strike: it has none.

It’s very simple, and readily apparent to anyone who is familiar with the dynamics of impact and rolling objects: striking the ball with an open or closed face does not make the ball wobble, but the stripes may appear to wobble —which may appear to the uninitiated that the ball itself is wobbling—unless they are perfectly aligned with both the face and the path.

Face angle relative to path determines the direction that the ball heads immediately upon coming off of the face; “wobble”, as shown by the stripes on the ball, indicates only that the stripes were not aligned with the path that the ball started rolling on. If the ball starts to wobble later in the roll, that’s an indication that it hit some inconsistency in the putting surface and was thrown off line—but neither of these things means that the ball is rolling inconsistently—“wobbling”—due to having been struck with an open or closed face.

To help you visualize how this works, imagine slicing a section through the ball along the stripe to make a disc. That disc is like a coin standing on edge—if you roll it and it rolls true you will only see the edge of the disc-shape as it rolls away, like the illustration on the left, below. However, if the stripe is tilted to the path of the ball, the disc-shape described by the stripe will sweep a wider path as the ball rolls, like the illustration on the right, below, presenting a visual “wobble” even though the ball is rolling true to the path.

The only way to know whether the ball was struck with a face that was square to the intended path is to observe the ball’s roll relative to the intended line. Because the ball always leaves the club face on a path that is perpendicular to the face, observing the roll to note whether or not the ball starts on the intended path will tell you if face and path were square.

Watching a stripe on the ball as it rolls will only tell you if the stripe was aligned to the path when the ball started rolling, and that is pretty useless information.

------------------------------------------
* (italics mine)

Pistol-style putter grips from Super Stroke may be right for you

You are probably familiar with Super Stroke putter grips, the fat grips designed to help minimize wrist motion for a more consistent putting stroke. You may have discounted their straight, constant-diameter grips if you are, like me, a pistol-style putter grip aficionado, but if you are in the market for a change in your putter grip the lineup of Super Stroke pistol-style grips may be worth a look.

There are three models in the Super Stroke line of pistol-style grips: from slimmest to fattest they are the Pistol Tour, Pistol 1.0 and Pistol 2.0. The Pistol Tour weighs in at a nominal 69 grams, the 2.0 at 83 grams, and the 2.0, though the widest grip in the lineup at 1.32 inches, comes in at the lowest weight – a positively svelte 51 grams.

The Zenergy Pistol Tour is the slimmest of the
three pistol-style putter grips from Super Stroke.

Besides the larger grip diameter, the other notable feature of the Super Stroke putter grips is what they call the Tech-Port – an internally-threaded plastic insert located in the butt end of the grip that allows the installation of the Super Stroke putter weights. The weights come in 25-, 50-, and 75-gram sizes, and are very handy for fine-tuning the balance of your putter. If you are a regular reader of this blog you will be familiar with my thoughts on counterweighting in putters – this is a feature that I am very enthusiastic about.

I recently did a trial run with the Super Stroke Pistol Tour, the slenderest model in their lineup of pistol-style grips, to get a feel for what these grips, with their compromise position between standard grips and the really wide-girth constant-diameter grips, can offer to the golfer who is looking for a change. Compared to my usual putter grip, the standard Odyssey White Hot Pro pistol-style grip, the Pistol Tour is nearly identical in weight, with only a couple of grams difference between the two examples of each grip that I measured; the main difference between the two lies in the shape of the grip rather than the weight.

While the Pistol Tour has the contoured shape that you would expect in a pistol grip, it has a noticeably greater girth than the White Hot Pro. I measured the Pistol Tour at 1.07-inch wide at the butt end of the grip, with a width of .95-inch at the bottom end. Compare this to the White Hot Pro’s .87-inch and .70-inch dimensions for the same locations – a 20% taper compared to the Pistol Tour’s 11% taper. The Pistol Tour also tapers less front to back than the White Hot Pro, from 1.25-inch to .88-inch at the bottom, compared to the White Hot Pro’s 1.17-inch to .70-inch (it is circular at the bottom end.)

That small amount of taper is the reason for the most noticeable difference that I found in the “Before ” and “After” configurations of my Odyssey Works Tank Cruiser 1 putter when I swapped out the White Hot Pro grip for the Super Stroke Pistol Tour: despite a 2.5-gram difference in weight between the two grips (the Pistol Tour is heavier), and a minus 1-gram difference in weight after the swap (there was some tape buildup under the old grip), the swing weight of the putter with the Super Stroke grip went from D4 to D8 – a noticeable shift toward a head-heavy setup.

The reason for this significant change lies in where the weight is located; the more uniform thickness of the Pistol Tour grip places more of its mass down the shaft, farther from the butt end, with a commensurate increase in swing weight. This characteristic of the Pistol Tour is not necessarily a negative, it is just something that you need to be aware of if you are contemplating changing from a more conventional grip to a Super Stroke model.

Another grip characteristic that is very important, of course, is feel. The Super Stroke putter grips use a rubber material with a soft surface that is grippy but not tacky, and which holds up well with a bit of regular cleaning. In addition, there is a simulated stitched seam down the back side of the grip that acts as a position reference to help you place your hands on the grip consistently shot after shot.

If you are looking for a change in your putter setup, but aren’t ready to jump from your standard pistol grip all the way to a full-on constant-diameter grip, the Super Stroke line-up of pistol grips might be just what you are looking for – with the added bonus of being able to fine-tune your putter’s end-to-end balance with the Super Stroke putter weights.

So, what IS the worst golf movie ever made?

Last month, on a whim, I started on an online Twitter poll match-play tournament about golf movies, and to give it what I hoped would be a unique twist, I opted to make it a “Worst Golf Movie Ever Made” (WGMEM) poll.

With a little help from Twitter friends who supplied the names of some golf-related movies that I hadn’t heard of before, I put together a list of twenty films, from the earliest I found, the 1951 Ben Hogan bio-flick Follow The Sun, to 2022’s The Phantom of the Open, about a serial imposter (and non-golfer) named Maurice Flitcroft who tries to enter the British Open. For background and accountability, I watched the ones I hadn’t previously seen (when they were available for viewing) and set things in motion.

Composing a match-play breakdown, I opened with two matchups on the first day the much-loved Caddyshack versus its much-reviled sequel, Caddyshack II, and two biographical films about revered golfers of decades past, Bobby Jones: A Stroke of Genius and Follow The Sun. Turnout was okay in that first round, with 69 votes cast in the dueling-Caddyshacks poll, and 37 in the bio-flick matchup. Caddyshack II won in a rout, 64 to 5 (I want to talk to those five people who think that the original Caddyshack is worse than the execrable sequel), and Follow The Sun, which features a fine actor but obvious non-golfer, Glenn Ford, portraying Ben Hogan, the man with one of the most beautiful golf swings ever seen, prevailed over the Bobby Jones story 23 votes to 14.

After that first round it appeared that people lost interest. I get it, folks are busy, but totals of ten, twelve, and then seven votes in the remaining polls in the Round of 16 were frankly disappointing. I mean, I have a little over 2,100 Twitter followers, and out of all those people no more than a dozen could be bothered to take a second or two and click on a poll button? Sigh…

Voting in the Round of 8 was equally disappointing, with a total of six votes cast, and the Semifinal round pulled a two-vote tie in one poll and no votes in the other. Throwing up my hands in frustration I cancelled the final round and declared Caddyshack II, the film with the most votes as WGMEM the winner – despite the fact that it was knocked out in the Round of 8 (in a one-vote “sweep”.)

In the wake of my poll I started thinking about a couple of existential questions relating to golf movies: What is a golf movie? What makes a golf movie a good or bad golf movie (as opposed to a good or bad movie, period)? Digging deep into my memories of a college Film Studies class (fulfilling a Humanities requirement for this Engineering major), I pondered these questions.

As I pondered, I received a bit of feedback (via Twitter DMs) from one contributor, Golf.com correspondent and fellow Bay Area resident Josh Sens. In the 1990s, prior to his current golf-writing gig, Sens reviewed movies for the Oakland Tribune, and he had these thoughts to share about golf movies:

“I think most golf movies suck to the point of being unwatchable. Partly because golf is hard to dramatize and partly because the guys playing the role of pros rarely have believable swings—but maybe also because golfers are boring?”

Josh’s comment about actors with poor golf swings is valid, up to a point, but unless the disparity is obvious, and egregious, it has never been a major sticking point for me.

I have found that golfers can also be extremely picky regarding other details in golf-related movies. Five years ago I was involved in an online discussion about The Greatest Game Ever Played, a golf movie that I think works very well on many levels, but one commenter in the discussion, who was obviously a deep-dive aficionado of golf equipment of that era (the story takes place in 1913) complained that the golf clubs that the actors were using were from the wrong decade (I can’t remember if it was earlier or later), and that the anachronism ruined the film for him.

(I have spotted anachronisms in movies from time to time (the case of archival footage of a Korean-War-era jet crashing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in the 1976 film Midway comes to mind), but though noticeable (and/or laughable) I have never delved so deeply into “anorak” territory that a movie was “absolutely ruined” for me because of such a thing.)

Sports movies in general fall into one or the other of two categories – they are either very specifically about the sport/game itself or a particular athlete or team, or they are framing a story about a more abstract social concept within the context of sport.

Josh echoed some of my own thoughts about golf movies in further comments:

“I remember interviewing the director Ron Shelton about Tin Cup. When the topic of Caddyshack came up, he said, ‘It’s a funny movie but it’s not a golf movie. It’s a movie about social class.’ ”

I guess you could say the same about all sports movies, that the good ones aren’t so much about the sport but about something deeper/more complex.”

I decided to try and split my list of golf movies into those two general categories: movies strictly about golf and/or golfers, and movies that use golf as a vehicle for another story concept:

Movies about golf:

• Follow The Sun
• The Caddy
• Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius
• Dead Solid Perfect
• Tin Cup
• The Greatest Game Ever Played
• Tommy’s Honour
• The Phantom of The Open
• The Squeeze

Movies that use golf as a metaphor:

• Caddyshack – class distinction and snobbery
• A Gentleman’s Game – social climbing/status-seeking
• The Legend of Bagger Vance – golf as a vehicle for recovery from trauma
• Golf in The Kingdom – golf as a path to enlightenment
• Seven Days in Utopia – golf as a vehicle for personal growth

I then found that some of the movies on the list really belong in a third category: just plain crappy movies. The movies to which I assign that dubious honor are:

• Happy Gilmore
• Golfballs!
• Caddyshack II
• Who’s Your Caddy?

Not that some of the movies on the first two lists aren’t really, really bad—they are. Follow The Sun is painfully earnest, and stars an actor who appears to have never held a golf club in his life before being cast in the film; Golf in The Kingdom takes a book that I find to be a terrible load of New Age drivel and turns it into an even worse movie; Seven Days in Utopia (which I reviewed here) and The Squeeze* are equally bad, for different reasons and in different ways.

The final comments I received from Sens:

“Caddyshack is tolerable because it has some good improv sketches by some great comedians but it only ranks high on the list of golf movies because the competition is so weak. Tin Cup is probably the best I’ve seen but it’s only a good film by golf film standards.”

Caddyshack is so ingrained in popular golf culture that I would venture to say that it is not only the most often quoted golf movie ever made, but one of the most often quoted movies of all time—and probably the only golf-related movie to have a book† (two, actually…) written about the making of the movie.

It should come as no surprise that my ultimate choice for WGMEM comes from my off-the-cuff third list of golf-movie types. Caddyshack II condenses the light-hearted “snobs vs slobs” credo of its namesake original into a bitter brew of broadly offensive clichés. Looking at the other two categories, my selections are, from movies about golf – The Squeeze; and from the list of movies that use golf as a metaphor – Golf in The Kingdom.

It gives me no joy to make these selections—not because it is painful to have to pass judgement on movies that someone obviously thought it would be a good idea and a useful expenditure of time and talent to produce, but because they are so painful to watch. They are that bad.

On the other hand, I take pleasure in selecting my favorite films from the two main categories (and here you will see that I am more or less on the same page as Josh Sens – but not necessarily for the same reasons): Tin Cup, from the list of movies that are actually about golf; and Caddyshack, from the list of movies that use golf as a metaphor.

Tin Cup takes the honors in its category for its realistic but humorous examination of the angst and anxieties associated with the game of golf, plus its stellar cast (Kevin Costner, Rene Russo, Cheech Marin, and Don Johnson – not to mention dipping into the ranks of actual pro golfers of the time in supporting cameos; such names as Peter Jacobsen, Craig Stadler, Gary McCord, and even a baby-faced Phil Mickelson) and outstanding writing.

From the other list, movies that use golf as a metaphor, Caddyshack heads the list because of the great – dare I say iconic – comic turns by Saturday Night Live alums Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Brian Doyle-Murray (one of Bill’s older brothers, and a writer on the film), veteran standup comedian (but feature film newbie) Rodney Dangerfield, relative newcomer Michael O’Keefe in his third feature film, and veteran straight-man Ted Knight.

Golf movies, as a broadly but capriciously defined genre of film, are a very niche product, but within the short list of movies that comprise that body of work can be found a wide spectrum of styles and quality – and probably, something to please just about any golf fan.

------------------------------------------------------------------

* Of which I wrote in another review that went down with the Examiner.com ship: “Golfers who care more about a decent golf swing than plot, dialogue, and character development will probably like this movie just fine, but I’m afraid that its eventual place in the golf movie spectrum will, in the long run, find it occupying a spot closer to The Foursome than to Caddyshack or Tin Cup.”

† Caddyshack – The Making of a Hollywood Cinderella Story, by Entertainment Weekly movie critic Scott Nashawaty, is a fascinating deep dive into not only the making of the movie, but the Harvard Lampoon and Saturday Night Live roots of the filmmakers and cast.

The State of the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am

Golf fans of a certain age, myself included, remember when the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am—aka the Crosby Clambake, the Bing Crosby Pro-Am, etc.—was a glamour event. Back in the days when the list of celebrity amateurs included such names as Clint Eastwood, James Garner, Jack Lemmon, and Phil Harris, and the professional ranks could list multiple members of the Top 20 players list. These days, however, as the amateurs list has moved from the original ratio of roughly four parts professional golfers to one part show business and sports celebrities, to a one-to-one ratio in a field that consists mostly of middle- to lower-tier pros, and CEOs and B- and C-list celebrities, the revered tournament has lost much of its luster.

But what would be required to return this tournament to some semblance of its former glory? On the amateur side of the roster that is a two-pronged question: 1) How to get a better class of celebrities, and 2) how to improve the viewing (and playing) experience while still maintaining the unique pro-am format.

The first part of that question is difficult to answer. The mechanics of who gets invited is a closely held secret, I imagine, known only to the inner circle of the responsible people in the presenting sponsor’s organization and their counterparts in the tournament’s organizing committee. The names of such popular celebrities of recent years as George Lopez and Andy Garcia (who was easily the best-dressed and most dapper amateur in the field in recent times) are now absent from the amateur roster, supplanted by DJs with single names and rap singers with rap sheets. The definition of “celebrity” has become so diluted these days that the glamour associated with the no-s**t-for-real movie stars that walked the fairways of Pebble, Cypress, and MPCC Shore in the “olden days” appears to be lost forever.

When it comes to improving the viewing and playing experience while maintaining the pro-am format, I think that that is an easier question to answer—though the people who mind the purse strings aren’t likely to look favorably on my solution: trim the field. The buy-in for amateur players is—well, it’s a big number; but one that a large number of “high-value individuals” (aka “rich people”) are willing to pay. I guess the cost is worth it for bragging rights at the 19th Hole of their home clubs; to be able to say that they played Pebble (and the other two courses) with a pro. Needless to say, the wealthy non-celebrity amateurs bring a lot cash to the coffers of the Monterey Peninsula Foundation, money that allows the Foundation to do a lot of good things in the way of charitable giving in the area.

Maybe the 4:1 ratio of Bing’s original format is too much to ask for, but cutting the pro-am field to no more than half of the full field is a feasible solution—or perhaps even 1:3, allowing the field to be split such that one course in each of the first three rounds is pro-am teams slogging through six-hour rounds while the pro-only groupings play the other two at a more normal pace.

As for improving the professional field, that is another two-part question. While once upon a time the chance to network and schmooze with the movers and shakers of the business world was a draw for the professional players in the field, in these days of agents, social media, and even the tour’s PIP system, that seems to be less of an attraction—and it is well-known that six-hour rounds with a CEO or hedge fund manager, even on the amazing and scenic courses in the tournament’s rota, are offputting to most of the top pros.

The other factor is money (of course.) While no slouch in the prize money department, with a total purse of $9 million and $1,620,000 to the winner, the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am lags behind the Tour’s new classification of “designated” events with their $20 million purses. In fact, Davis Thompson, who recently carded a career-best second-place finish at The American Express at La Quinta, in Palm Springs, WD’d from this tournament after receiving a sponsor’s exemption into next week’s Waste Management Phoenix Open, a designated event which carries the aforementioned $20M purse. His advertised reason was to get a week of rest after four weeks of play, but one wonders if, given his recent success at desert golf, the $20M purse isn’t an incentive.

Jordan Spieth had something to say about things that could help the tournament, both possible format changes as well as potential elevated status, in his press conference on Wednesday:

“I’m not sure how it could work. Let’s put it this way: I'm not sure exactly how it could work. I think maintaining, at least, if it’s not every year elevated, if it were to rotate or something like that.

You know, you still have the opportunity to have the pro-am portion and you could still work it into an elevated event, I think. It doesn’t really need to change. Or that year you have the pro-am going on on other two courses or — I think there's some options to play around with.”

If you have been reading my coverage over the years, you know that I am a big fan of this tournament, however it goes – but I think that in order to regain its former prestige, some changes will have to be made. I will be here for it, whatever happens.

Daylight Saving Time vs Standard Time – how does it affect golf?

As I write this article the annual “fall back” time change, when we set our clocks back an hour and return to Standard Time, has just occurred. Since daylight is important to golfers, I thought that I would take a look at the concept and practice of changing our clocks, with an emphasis (of course) on how the practice affects golf.

North vs south

The natural changing of the seasons affects the length of the day (“day” for our purposes meaning the hours of daylight), so changes in the times when the sun rises and sets, and therefore the length of the day, are familiar to all of us. The amount of change which occurs is dependent upon latitude—how far north or south the location is: for example, between the longest days of summer and the shortest days of winter the length of the day changes by anywhere from about six and a quarter hours in northern-tier states like Michigan to three and a quarter hours in south Florida.

Of course, setting our clocks ahead an hour or back an hour doesn’t affect the length of the day—it just changes where within the artificial construct of our 24-hour day the sunlit period falls. There are many reasons why the switch between Standard Time and DST was put in place, but the history behind all that is beyond the scope of this article.

Early to rise – but not too early

Using my location, San José, California, as an example, and looking at a table of sunrise and sunset times downloaded from the U.S. Naval Observatory’s website, I see that on the longest day of the year in 2022—June 21st—we enjoyed 14 hours and 45 minutes of direct sunlight. (Theoretically at least, since the sunrise and sunset times are based on a flat horizon like you would find at sea, or in Kansas, and we have hills both to the east and the west of us.) Thanks to DST, sunrise on June 21st, 2022 was at 5:47 a.m.—pretty early for most folks, but without the clock change that we made earlier in the year, on the 13th of March, sunrise would have been at 4:47 a.m.—which is really early.

This illustrates the biggest selling point of DST for most people: the one-hour shift of the clock positions the daylight hours in a more usable portion of the clock day, eliminating sunlit time that occurs upwards of two hours before most people get out of bed, and giving us more time with sunlight after we come home from work.

For golfers this mostly means more opportunity to play a round, if even only a short one, after work on those long summer days. This is of course an upside for golf course operators, who see a boost in work-week business (as written about in this Golfweek article from last summer: How golf plays a role in the battle for ‘locking the clock’ on Daylight Time.) Also of interest, but not mentioned in that article, is the fact that since tee times start at the first usable light—as much as 30 minutes before sunrise, depending upon your location—DST carries an added bonus for those golf-course employees who have to be at the course well before the first golfers tee off.

One sticking point in the argument for DST is Arizona, certainly a state where golf is a big deal, but the one state in the contiguous 48 states which does not use DST (except for the part of Arizona which comprises the Navajo Nation, which occupies an area equal to about 1/5 of the total area of Arizona, in the northeast corner of the state, where DST is used.) The rationale that is presented for this contrarian position is energy savings – not because of lighting, which is often cited as a pro-DST factor, but because of air conditioning.

Keeping the clock day synchronized with the solar day (within the construct of a time zone which spans some 5.5º degrees of latitude from one side of the state to the other), with the daylight hours positioned earlier in the clock day, is supposed to save energy and money by reducing the use of air conditioning in the harsh Arizona summers. Questions of the effectiveness of this approach aside (color me skeptical—Palm Springs, California, is hot, too…), this skews the operating principle for golfers in the Grand Canyon State toward playing golf early in the morning, before work, in the summer.

East/west matters, too

Even within the same time zone, however, your position east or west makes a difference. Only along a specific line of longitude in each time zone will clock time conform exactly to solar time (when Standard Time is in effect, of course); points east of that line will experience an earlier sunrise (and set), while points west will see later sunrise/set times. For example, in Caliente, Nevada, which lies at roughly the same latitude as my home in San José, CA, but is at the far eastern edge of the Pacific Time Zone, sunrise and sunset occur approximately 30 minutes earlier than they do in San José.

Wintertime is the test

And what about fall and winter? I realize that the part of the year during which Standard Time is in effect is not “golf season” in much of the country, but in twenty of the fifty states in the union (plus southern Utah), golf season, as defined by the USGA’s handicap reporting period, is year-round. DST or no, even with favorable weather, fitting in a round even as far south as the Miami area, where there are around 11 hours of usable daylight in the shortest days of the year, with sunrise at around 7 a.m. and sunset at 5:30 in the evening, can be tough.

Actually, it is this time of the year, during the 127 day period—or about 1/3 of the year—that is roughly centered about the winter solstice, that opponents of year-round DST focus on. In the more northerly states the sun doesn’t rise until nearly 8 a.m. in midwinter, around the solstice, setting at 5 p.m.; if DST were in effect it would mean 9 a.m. sunrises, offset by sunset at around six in the evening. Much of the debate around the concept of year-round DST is focused on this issue, with dire consequences predicted by sleep experts, and some safety professionals (because of kids going to school, and people driving, in the dark.) More information on that aspect of the debate here.

This is a battle that doesn’t affect golfers in most of the country, however, where the sticks are put away for a long winter’s nap, awaiting the return of warmer weather and longer days, no matter how the sunlit hours are distributed around the clock.

Book Review: “The Science of Golf”, by Will Haskett ⭐️☆☆☆☆

On the surface, golf is a simple game. You hit the ball, you find the ball, you hit the ball again—repeating that sequence, each time with the (hopefully) appropriate clubs, until the ball has come to rest in the hole. You count the number of times you hit the ball and write that number down as your score; the lower that number is, the better your score is.

Sports broadcaster Will Haskett cards a double-bogey
with this effort to explain golf technology to the layman.

In practice, however, there are a multitude of physical factors that determine how efficiently—that is, in how many strokes—you accomplish the goal of getting the ball from the tee to the hole. This book, authored by a sports play-by-play announcer and host who plays golf but has little experience as a writer and no technical training or background, is an attempt to explain the technical aspects of the game of golf, in a number of different areas, for the layperson.

The problem with this approach is that filtering technical information through a non-technical person to explain it to non-technical readers inevitably results in a significant loss of fidelity. In my 40+ years as a mechanical engineer I have been called upon many times to explain technical concepts to non-technical audiences; I have even written about the importance of such communication, and how to go about it (Presenting Design Concepts: How Mechanical Engineers Can Sell Slam-Dunk Ideas), and I can say with some authority that the author of this book shows himself to not be up to the task.

The author gives a shout-out to his wife (a “leadership consultant” whom he says is the actual writer in the household) in the Acknowledgements, in which he cites her encouraging declaration: “Will, you’re a good writer”, but reader, he is not. And what’s worse, the book’s editor, whom the author thanks in the first paragraph of the Acknowledgements, is apparently similarly very bad at her job, too.

Take this little tidbit from Chapter 1, for example: “A golfer’s mission is to enact as much force on the golf ball to make it move.” Get past the incorrect verb, “enact”, and you still stumble over the incomplete comparison which is started by the phrase “as much”. As much as what? As much as possible? As much as the other guy?

That example is just a taste; the text of this book is rife with similar instances of poor sentence construction, poor word choice and just plain incorrect grammar, but citing more of them would just be depressing. How they were not caught and corrected by a (presumably) professional editor is beyond comprehension.

Now let’s talk about the technical content. Here is where the combination of commonly promulgated misinformation and the author’s own shortcomings makes itself known.

Again in the opening chapter, the author lists the type of data that is gathered by launch monitors, and includes “sidespin rate” among those data points. Talking about “sidespin” is a common mistake that many lay golfers, and even some golf instructors make. It is a physical impossibility which I mention in my article about the myth of spin in putting (Debunking the Myth of Sidespin in Putting) because a sphere can only spin about a single axis. There is no “backspin” and “sidespin”, there is only spin.

A ball that is struck with perfectly square contact; that is, with the face of the club absolutely perpendicular to the swing path, will have pure backspin (the top surface of the ball moving in the opposite direction to the direction of travel), and it is rotating about an axis, the spin axis, that is horizontal—perpendicular to the Earth’s gravitational force. In the real world, outside of the achievement of hypothetical pure contact, swing path and face angle combine to determine the amount by which the spin axis deviates from the horizontal, and in which direction. The tilt of the spin axis, in concert with the spin rate of the ball and with the factors of air density, ambient air movement (that is, wind speed & direction), the aerodynamic qualities of the ball itself, and ball speed, determines the direction & shape of the ball’s flight.

Spin rate in rpm & spin axis angle in degrees are two of the data points gathered by the $22,000 Trackman 4 launch monitor system which is found in fitting bays and rich guys’ man caves, and set up behind many pro players on the range at Tour events. It is valuable information in the quest to optimize the golf swing, though I find that comparing spin axis angle to the bank angle of the wings of an airplane in flight, as is done in Trackman’s own online teaching series (Spin Axis) and quoted in this book, is a grievous oversimplification of the mechanics of the situation.

Many of the things that I found fault with in this book cannot be laid at the feet of the author; again, as a non-technical person he relied on the often-faulty information he was being fed by people in the golf industry.

Take the chapter on putting, for instance – in fact, to paraphrase the old-time comedian Henny Youngman, “Take that chapter, please.” And throw it away, because much of the information presented there is egregiously incorrect. After opening with a nice bit of exposition on the subject of strokes-gained: putting (it would be difficult to mess up Mark Broadie’s excellent statistical-analysis work on the importance of getting close to the hole), the author relates how Justin Silverstein, the head women’s golf coach at the University of Southern California, found that teaching his players to focus on speed led to a tremendous improvement in their putting stats. (See my column on this subject – “Putting, Part IV – Harvey Penick Was Right”.)

After that strong start, however, the chapter goes downhill rapidly, with references to the need for positive loft on a putter to lift the ball out of the depression it creates in the putting surface (an old wives’ tale), putting “topspin” on the ball (which, incidentally, is geometrically impossible to do with – what? – positive loft, that’s what), and matching path to face angle to prevent the generation of “sidespin” (there’s that word again.) He even trots out that tired old warhorse “muscle memory” when talking about grooving a consistent putting stroke.

Suffice it to say that I had to close the book and look away a number of times before I finished reading the chapter on putting. (By the way, for a reasonable, and fact-based, look at the interaction between putter and ball, I refer the reader—with all due modesty—to my recent article “Why your putts skid, and what you can do about it” at Will o'the Glen on Golf.)

There are many, many more instances of poor writing and incorrect or just poorly presented technical information in the book, but I can’t list them all—it would be too painful for everyone involved.

To sum up: Will Haskett’s book The Science of Golf: The Math, Technology, and Data is generally rather poorly written (which is somewhat forgivable in a draft version), but that poor writing persisted into the published version because it is also quite poorly edited (which is not forgivable.) The author is a layman attempting to explain technical concepts—which he does not himself understand fully—to a non-technical audience, and he fails rather badly.

Bright spots: the chapter on agronomy and the advancements that have been made in the understanding of growing and maintaining turfgrass; also, the chapter on data and decisions—but as I mentioned above, it’s really hard to mess up Mark Broadie’s work in this area. 

Low points: the chapter on putting (as described above) and the chapter on clubs, with such pithy quotes as “In order to get the ball in the air, you’ve got to have spin” and “Anything that has less spin launches higher and, obviously, it’s going to carry further and roll further” (Both quotes, by the way, from that well-known scholar of physics and aerodynamics, Tiger Woods.)

I won’t even mention the chapter on “the mental game”.

I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this book to the reader who wants to learn, even at the lay-person’s level, about the technical factors that drive the game of golf. It is too poorly written and presented (did I mention the several illustrations and charts, all in difficult-to-read low-contrast grayscale?), and too full of either incorrect information or poorly presented information, to be of any real benefit.

Why your putts skid, and what you can do about it

As I wrote in my previous article, despite the nonsense that you see and read online, or may even get from a teacher in an in-person lesson, you are not missing putts because you are putting spin on the ball. What you are absolutely doing, however, is skidding the ball. In order to understand why the ball skids, and how you can minimize skid and have better control of your putts, we have to take a look at the forces that are acting on the ball when it is struck by the putter, and after.

****************************

There are two main forces acting on a putted ball which determine how the ball moves: the impact force which the putter imposes on the ball (which becomes momentum once the ball leaves the club face) and the friction between the ball and the putting surface*. These two forces are opposing; that is, they act in opposite directions—but more importantly, they act at different points on the ball.

Because the contact between the club face and the ball when putting is so close to the equator, or midline, of the ball, the impact force is very closely aligned to the ball’s center of mass (sometimes referred to as the center of gravity, or CG), so the impact force (and after impact, momentum), acts at the center of the ball, while the friction force, as shown in the illustration below, acts at the periphery, or outer surface, of the ball.

Impact force or momentum, opposed by friction, causes the ball to roll

The force of impact, and then momentum, translates the ball, while the tangential friction, acting at the periphery of the ball much like a hand on the steering wheel of a car, turns the ball around its center, causing it to roll. If a ball were struck while sitting on a hypothetical frictionless surface, without the opposing force of friction acting at its periphery, the ball would simply slide, translating without rolling, so the friction between the ball and the putting surface is an important factor in the launch conditions of a putt.

If impact force or momentum is not opposed by friction the ball will translate without rolling.

It is effectively impossible to achieve instantaneous roll at contact except in a very short, very lightly struck putt—a tap-in, or a steep downhill putt. For a putt of any distance (depending, of course, upon the friction characteristics of the putting surface), where the force of the initial impact is greater than the frictional force between the ball and the surface, the ball skids, slipping on the putting surface until the torque imposed by friction increases the spin rate to match the translational speed of the ball. This happens on nearly every putt, to some extent, and to improve your putting performance you have to understand why it happens, and what you can do to minimize it.

The length of the skid phase depends upon several factors: the delivered loft of the putter face (that is, the vertical angle of the club face at impact with the ball: static loft + dynamic loft); how hard the ball is hit; and the amount of friction between the ball and the putting surface and between the club face and the ball.

The illustration below shows a putter with 2˚ of effective loft at the moment of contact with the ball. The angle of the face places the impact point approximately 30 thousandths of an inch below the equator, or horizontal midline, of the ball (that’s about 1/32 of an inch; you know, those divisions on your scale that you can just about make out without putting on your reading glasses? Or maybe that’s just me.) The red arrows in the illustration depict the impact force vector and its horizontal and vertical components.

The slight positive loft on the putter face tends to lift the ball at impact.

The vertical component of the impact force, though small, is important. Its presence means that the ball is being nudged upwards slightly by the impact of the club face. There are those who will tell you that this upward nudge is necessary to get the ball out of the slight depression it creates in the putting surface by its own weight (including the folks at Scotty Cameron, who cite in-house studies that they say confirm this. Color me skeptical.)

What that upward nudge will do is off-weight the ball slightly at the beginning of its movement—if not lift it entirely free of the surface momentarily. The effect of this reduction in the contact between the ball and the putting surface is a reduction in the frictional force which induces roll, and therefore an increase in initial skidding.

Because positive loft, even in amounts as small as the standard 3.0˚ to 3.5˚ found on most putters, places the point of impact below the ball’s equator, it also adds a small counter-spin rotational force component to the motion of the ball, which works against the friction-induced force that creates forward rotation. The combination of upward nudge and counter-rotational force contributes to the ball’s tendency to skid, and must be reduced to minimize skid and optimize launch conditions.

I wasn’t able to find any studies which examined skidding with regard to control—that is, staying on line, but it has been shown to be important to achieving consistent distance control.

There was an interesting study** done in 2014 by Jeremy Pope, Paul Wood, and Erik Henrikson, of Ping Golf in Phoenix, Arizona, and David James of Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, which primarily focused on the effect of skidding distance on distance control. Utilizing putters with loft angles of 5˚, 3˚, 1˚ and –1˚, this study found that the putter with –1˚ loft performed best in terms of minimizing skid distance and producing consistent total putting distance, on both natural and artificial turf surfaces. (Take that, Scotty Cameron.)

I did a quick survey of putter manufacturers as background for this article, and learned (as mentioned above) that the standard loft for off-the-rack putters is around 3.0˚ to 3.5˚, with customization available from some manufacturers of from +3˚ to -2˚ (note that none of these number yield the negative loft which performed best in the 2014 study.)

Setting aside variables like turf type, turf condition, moisture, mow height, etc., one thing that can be stated with certainty is that a too-high delivered loft will increase skid distance, and can even result in a ball that lifts off of the putting surface slightly as it leaves the club face, resulting in a bouncing motion. This is bad for both distance and direction control.

Some studies cited in the book The Science of the Perfect Swing, by Peter Dewhurst—a rather dense little volume that will test your math and physics knowledge, your patience, and your eyesight (8-point type? Really?)—claim results that showed that the skid phase of a putted ball is typically one-seventh of the total distance of the putt, regardless of the length of the putt. Honestly, I find that hard to believe, and I have to wonder at the test conditions and methods that led to such conclusions.

My own home-grown testing, on a firm industrial carpet surface that stimps at about 13 to 14 (at a guess), using my stable of four putters which are all bent to a loft of approximately –1˚, showed mostly pure skid for the first two to four inches from contact, as shown on slow-motion video, with full rolling contact occurring at between six and eight inches on eight-foot putts.

As is always the case in putting there are a number of variables that affect the results, and the friction characteristics of the artificial putting surface I practice on is certainly one of them, but scientific studies and my own on-course experience have convinced me of the effectiveness of a slight negative loft.

(No brag, just fact: At the media preview for the 2019 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, I managed four one-putt greens and eleven two-putts† in near-U.S. Open conditions with my mongrelized Tight Lies Anser-clone putter, counter-weighted and bent to a –1˚ loft. )

If warranted by on-course conditions, such as a soft, slow putting surface due to mow height or moisture, it is always possible to increase dynamic loft by moving the ball forward in your stance, thus increasing delivered loft.

Because there’s such a thing as too much of a good thing, reducing loft too much, for example by using excessive forward shaft lean or moving the ball back in your stance, tends to cause the ball to bounce because it is being driven into the putting surface at contact. This is also an undesirable result, because it starts the ball on its path in an unstable mode.

The Bottom Line

Of the factors other than impact force that affect the launch condition of a putted ball—delivered loft and the friction conditions of the putting surface—the one that the golfer can control is delivered loft. Based on proven studies, and my own personal experience, the first step is to reduce the loft on your putter (you can experiment with it, but –1˚ is a good starting point) and you can make adjustments, as conditions warrant, by varying the placement of the ball with respect to the vertical arc of your swing.

I started this article series with the intention of discussing why, like crying in baseball, there is no spin in putting—and why that spinning ball video clip on Instagram was a pointless demonstration based on misconception and ignorance. The scope of the article grew as I wrote, and then it split into two, despite my having held back a great deal of detail that I could have included.

I hope that I have been able to educate the reader a bit about the realities of an important aspect of putting—how the ball transitions from a static position to forward roll—and also in how you can go about maximizing the roll quality of your putts for more consistent distance control. (The importance of speed—and therefore distance control—was the subject of another putting article that I wrote about four years ago. My how time flies.)

Maybe if I get ambitious at some point in the future, I will take on the subject of the break.

—————————————————————————

* As I mentioned, briefly, in the previous article, gravity affects the ball when the putting surface is slanted, but that is a subject for another discussion.

** Jeremy Pope, David James, Paul Wood, and Erik Henrikson, The effect of skid distance on distance control in golf putting (The 2014 Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association)

† I see you counting on your fingers, and yes, that’s only fifteen greens. The other three holes, including my nemesis, #6, are better not spoken of.