Graphite putter shafts, Part I: Why the big manufacturers with skin in the game are doing it wrong

I spend more time practicing putting (on the carpet in my office, which stimps at about 13, I figure) than any other part of my game, and I read with interest all the articles about putter design and the putting stroke that I come across. I also follow new developments in putter design, many of which turn out to be pointless, ridiculous, overhyped, or just plain wrong (see my review of the Stability Shaft by Breakthrough Golf Technology, on which more later in this column.)

In pursuit of better putting I have experimented with counterweighting by adding grip weights to my putters, for which there is a factual physical basis, unlike many of the spurious putting “innovations” which are touted in Golf Channel infomercials and even by big-name manufacturers. Extrapolating the concept of increasing stability by redistributing mass from the shaft to the ends of the club, the next thing that I wanted to do was to replace the steel shaft in my putter with a graphite shaft.

Changing from a steel putter shaft to a graphite shaft can save as much as 100 grams, freeing up that mass to be moved to the head and the grip end of the club while keeping the same total weight; a change which, as I explain in the counter-weighting article, increases the club’s stability in the long axis, which benefits speed control.

But before I talk about my putter-shaft experiment, let’s look at the current state of the art in graphite composite and multi-material putter shafts.

Who is making graphite putter shafts, and why?

There are three manufacturers that I know of that are currently marketing graphite-composite shafts, or shafts incorporating graphite-composite, for putters: Odyssey, with their Stroke Lab shafts (though not available as a retrofit item); Breakthrough Golf Technology (BGT) with their so-called Stability Shaft (retail cost $129.99 to $299.99); and LA Golf, which markets a line of graphite shafts up and down the bag, including three for putters (retail cost $419.00).

Of those three companies only Odyssey specifically cites the redistribution of mass as a benefit of the use of their graphite-composite shaft, and their Stroke Lab line of putters include the use of additional weights in the head and the grip of the club to redistribute the mass saved in the shaft. Both Breakthrough Golf Technology and LA Golf, however, cite the so-called “low-torque” characteristics of their shafts in preventing “head wobble” as the prime benefit.

These three manufacturers differ not only in the claims they make for the benefits of their composite shafts, but in the details of their construction. The Odyssey Stroke Lab shaft and the BGT Stability Shaft are multi-material units which combine a graphite-composite tube for the upper portion of the shaft with a length of conventional steel shafting for the lower portion which mates with the putter head. The Stroke Lab shaft uses unspecified means to bond the steel and graphite sections of their shaft together; the BGT design uses both an aluminum stiffener and a separate aluminum connector between the two sections.

The LA Golf putter shafts, on the other hand, are 100% graphite composite material, but like BGT, their advertising cites the “stiff, low torque” characteristics of their shafts in preventing head wobble or deflection that is “caused by traditional shafts” as the advantage of their product.

So let’s break it down:

Manufacturer            Construction Type                    Claimed Benefit

Odyssey                   Graphite upper/steel lower        Improved mass dist'n

Breakthrough Golf     Graphite upper/steel lower        Improved head

Technology                w/aluminum stiffeners and       stability

                                connector midshaft

LA Golf                     100% Graphite composite         Improved head

                                                                              stability

Both BGT and LA Golf claim that conventional steel putter shafts are weak—weak enough to twist in response to the forces exerted on them by the inertial forces resulting from the movement of the club acting on the mass of the club head.

The following quote is from the LA Golf website:

“Recent data shows that outside 12 feet, when a player begins forward motion the head wiggles slightly and that instability can change your putt line even if you read the line correctly and put the perfect stroke on it.

The head also wiggles when you strike the putt even fractionally off center (which everyone does) causing you to lose distance on the roll.”

It is, of course, utter nonsense to attribute the motions described in that quote to flex in the shaft; to do so is to reveal a complete lack of understanding of the magnitudes of the forces involved, and the ability of the structures being discussed to handle the forces to which they are subjected.

Of course, the people who want you to shell out anywhere from $130 to over $400 for a new putter shaft are counting on the average golfer taking their quasi-scientific marketing jargon at face value—but if you keep reading you will learn how they are leading you astray.

What do they mean when they say “torque”?

What the ad copy for golf club shafts refers to, incorrectly, as “torque”, is the torsional stiffness of the golf shaft. It’s measured by clamping the butt end end of the shaft in a fixed position and applying one foot-pound of torque—that is, a force of one pound acting at a distance of one foot from the center of the shaft—at a point further down the shaft and measuring how much the shaft twists. (The results obtained from this test can be greatly affected by the testing method—especially by the length of shaft between the clamping point and the point at which the force is applied—so comparisons between the data given by different manufacturers are not necessarily valid.)

This “torque” number can range from three or four degrees for a steel shaft to upwards of eight degrees for the more flexible graphite shafts—but these numbers are only really relevant for full-swing clubs: wedges, irons, hybrids, and woods; clubs in which the club face contacts the ball at speeds of up to 125 miles per hour (Note: PGA Tour pros average about 110 mph of club head speed with driver, and some go much higher.) Those high club head speeds produce very high resultant forces on the club head, and therefore, significant torsional forces in the club shaft.

For putters the force acting on the shaft, even as a result of impact with the ball, is orders of magnitude lower than for full-swing clubs, and the torque input to the shaft resulting from inertial forces acting on the club head before contact with the ball are so far below the threshold which would result in deformation of the shaft that they can be ignored.

The bottom line…

The claims that are being made by Breakthrough Golf Technology and LA Golf—that larger, heavier modern putter heads “overpower” a conventional steel shaft, and thus require their expensive, over-engineered offerings, which are actually no stiffer in torsion than a generic $9 steel putter shaft—are complete nonsense.

The all-graphite composite shafts from LA Golf are the right idea, but they appear to be doing the right thing for the wrong reason—and they cost waaay too much.

The sophisticated multi-component shafts such as the BGT unit and the Odyssey Stroke lab shaft introduce complexity where simplicity will do; the complexity adds no value, and actually compromises the potential effectiveness of lighter-weight graphite composite construction by the use of a steel lower shaft. The BGT Stability Shaft is the most egregious offender of the two, due to their use of two aluminum components mid-shaft, at the junction of the graphite and steel portions, which returns mass to the middle of the club.

In Part II of my look at graphite-composite putter shafts I will walk you through my home-workshop experiments, in which I modified my bargain-bin Tight Lies Anser-style putter as an experimental test bed.

Stay tuned.

A junior golfer’s reaction to playing with a legend of the game

In the wake of last week’s U.S. Women’s Open qualifier at Half Moon Bay Golf Links, I was lucky enough to get some reactions from one of the two high-school-age golfers who played with two-time U.S. Women’s Open champion Juli Inkster.

Harper Clementz, of San Francisco, plays on the boys’ golf team at San Francisco University High School, is a Junior Merit member at the Olympic Club, and wants to be a NASA Flight Controller someday:

Juli Inkster, 1999 and 2002 USGA U.S. Women’s Open champion, and one of her two playing partners in the Monday, April 26 qualifying tournament at Half Moon Bay Golf Links, 16-year-old Harper Clementz of San Francisco. (photo courtesy Cindy Clementz)

Q: What did you think when you found out you were paired with Juli?

A: My initial reaction was shock and disbelief. I didn't think the USGA would pair her with a teenage amateur but I was excited that they did!

Q: What was Juli like on the course?

A: Juli was friendly and focused. She treated us like equal playing partners. She always wanted to play “honors” from the tee, which is how they play on the LPGA, and that was something different from my usual tournaments. When I was struggling in the second round, she offered to hit first to give me more time to prepare. It was such a courteous thing to do.

Q: Did anything interesting, funny, or memorable happen during either round?

A:  After the first round, on the 18th hole, she smiled at us and said, “Alright, let’s do better next time!”, and she was ready to go again even though I was ready to sit down since I had never played 36 holes in a row before. I think she knew we were starstruck and she tried to make us feel at ease. She was the first person to say “nice shot” or “great putt” and it’s a good feeling to get a compliment like that from such a legend.

Q: Did you learn anything from the experience of playing with her?

A: Even if you are a Hall of Fame golfer, you still make mistakes; it’s about how hard you fight back. She didn’t hit perfect shots every time, but she knew how to recover quickly and move on. Also, it’s okay to make jokes and laugh even though it’s a serious competition. Despite one particularly bad stretch of holes, I proved to myself that I can keep up and that motivates me to keep practicing—I was already back on the range on Monday afternoon.

A legend shares her wisdom at local U.S. Women’s Open qualifier

Much was made in golf-related social and traditional media a couple of weeks ago when the news broke that Juli Inkster—LPGA legend, multiple major winner, and three-time Solheim Cup captain—had entered the April 26th U.S. Women’s Open qualifying tournament at Half Moon Bay Golf Links.

Juli Inkster watches the flight of her tee shot at the par-four 8th hole of the Half Moon Bay Golf Links Old Course in the second round of a qualifying tournament for the 2021 USGA U.S. Women’s Open. (photo by Gary K. McCormick)

A Bay Area local, Inkster grew up in Santa Cruz, played college golf at San Jose State University, and lives in Los Altos Hills with her husband, Brian, who is the Director of Golf at Los Altos Golf and Country Club. Since home is just 40 minutes down the Peninsula from the Olympic Club in San Francisco, where the 2021 U.S. Women’s Open will be held in early June, she decided to take a shot at qualifying for the event. 

“I’m probably an idiot for trying,” said 60-year-old Inkster, “but I think I would be disappointed in myself if I didn’t because it’s so close to home.”

She hasn’t played in a U.S. Women’s Open since 2015, when she finished T15 after four consecutive missed cuts in the event, but has two victories in the tournament to her credit, in 1999 and 2002, as well as four other top 10 finishes since 1988.

Inkster was by far the, uh, most experienced player in the field at the Half Moon Bay qualifier, and was paired with two of the youngest players in the event: Kiara Romero, a 15-year-old high school freshman from San Jose who was the 2019 – 2020 Junior Tour of Northern California Girls’ Player of the Year; and 16-year-old Harper Clementz of San Francisco, a sophomore at San Francisco University High School and a Junior Merit member at the Olympic Club who aspires to a career as a NASA Flight Director.

Thirty-six holes of golf on a challenging and hilly course like the Old Course at Half Moon Bay Golf Links is a real test, and Juli was very encouraging to her two young playing partners throughout the long day. The holes at the Old Course at Half Moon Bay Golf Links, a 1973 Arnold Palmer and Francis Duane design, are a banquet of uneven lies, strategic bunkering, and subtly contoured greens. Add to that mixture the fatigue of a long day—36 holes of golf with (as it turned out) only 15 minutes between rounds, the changing conditions that necessarily accompany a day of golf that stretches from an 8:20 a.m. tee time to nearly 6:30 p.m.—and even golfers with twice the experience of Kiara Romero and Harper Clementz will find the going tough.

Throughout the day Inkster was welcoming and encouraging to her two young playing partners, congratulating them on good shots (of which there were many) even as she concentrated on her own game. At the end of her round the girls took pictures with Juli, and Harper showed her a signed glove that she had brought with her – a glove that Juli gave her at the 2015 ANA Inspiration, which Harper’s parents took her to see when she was just getting into the game.

Unfortunately there was no fairytale ending to the day. Inkster finished 11 strokes out of a qualifying spot (three qualified out of a field of 73), and Kiara Romero, who possesses a swing that is so long and fluid that it begs to be set to music, actually bested her by three stokes—all in the final round. I’m sure that both Harper and Kiara will carry memories of this day with them throughout their lives in golf.

The gold medalist on the day was Benicia’s Kathleen Scavo, who recently concluded her college golf career at the University of Oregon and has embarked on a professional golf career, playing on the Symetra Tour. Second and third places, respectively, were claimed by Kelly Tan, an LPGA player originally from Malaysia, and another Bay Area native, Lucy Li, who won this qualifying event in 2014, when she became the youngest player to have ever qualified for the U.S. Women’s Open.

Cheap knockoff of PuttOUT putting trainer doesn’t pass the smell test

UPDATE, 4/27/2021: After I informed the “customer service representative” that I was unable to delete the review because I am obligated to post reviews on products which I receive through the Vine program, they asked if I would, for the same compensation previously offered, change it to five stars. Unbelieveable…

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

UPDATE, 4/26/2021: One week after posting a review of this item on Amazon, and this article, I received an e-mail message from a “customer service representative” at the company which manufactures and markets this product. I was offered a $50 Amazon gift card or a direct payment in the same amount if I would delete my negative review.

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

It is almost a given, in today’s world, that a successful product will be counterfeited and cheap knockoffs sold—sometimes through legitimate outlets—by parasitic quick-buck manufacturers. I ran across one such item recently, on Amazon.com: a Made-In-China knockoff of the popular PuttOUT trainer called the Amolabe Pressure Trainer.

Side-by-side visual comparison of my well-used and slightly grimy
original PuttOUT (left), and the Amolabe knockoff copy (right).

Maybe you have seen my review of the PuttOUT device, which I received as a Christmas gift three years ago (after giving it pride of place on my wish list…). I have used my PuttOUT almost daily since I got it—especially in the last year, when my home office has been my full-time daily workspace—and it has definitely improved my putting; for proof I offer my four one-putt and eleven two-putt greens at Pebble Beach in U.S. Open knick at the pre-event USGA Preview Day for the 2019 Open.

As for how I came into possession of an example of this knockoff copy of the PutOUT: I am a member of a product review program on Amazon.com called Amazon Vine. Vine members can choose products of all sorts from a list posted on the website, and receive those products at no cost (sort of…*) in exchange for posting a review on the site. I am always on the lookout for golf-related products in the Amazon Vine list, and have obtained and reviewed quite a few over the last several years; about a week ago I spotted the item that is the subject of this post.

Like so many of the products that are sold on Amazon.com, the Amolabe Pressure Trainer is a cheap, Chinese-made knockoff of an original product that was conceived, designed, and developed by someone else—usually a Western manufacturer. Though closely reverse-engineered to perform much like the original, the build quality, fit, and finish of the Amolabe copy are poor—not to mention that this product represents outright intellectual theft of the design and development work that went into the original PuttOUT.

The material from which it is made is noticeably different from the original PuttOUT, particularly the portion which comprises the target and base, which is made of a slightly softer material than is used on the original device; as a result, this vital piece is readily deformed, and does not hold its shape well. In addition, the fit between the stiffer plastic ramp portion of the device and the target/base is rather poor, in particular the fit of the Micro-Target, a hinged piece that allows the user to reveal a hole in the ramp where a ball rolled with “perfect” pace and alignment will come to rest.

The Amolabe device performed similarly to the PuttOUT, but I noticed that the leading edge of the target portion, if not made to lie flat against the surface, would slightly deflect the ball as it crossed it. The contours of the ramp, which are so vital to the rollback feedback performance of the PuttOUT that makes it unique, appear to be very close to those of the original, but it would take very sophisticated measurement equipment to determine how close.

The bottom line is that the Amolabe device performs… adequately, and maybe $8.99 for this counterfeit looks better to you than the $39.99 purchase price of the now-upgraded original PuttOUT. What your purchase decision comes down to is whether you prefer to support the dedicated, diligent people who design, develop, and produce original products, or line the pockets of Amazon’s multi-billionaire owner Jeff Bezos and some unknown Chinese factory owner.

I opt for the former. 

Shame on Amazon for carrying this product on their website.

* (The advertised value of products chosen is toted up over the year, and if the total hits the IRS’ $600 threshold a 1099 form is issued, and the Vine member is responsible for taxes on the total value of products obtained through the program.)

Comparisons of Tiger Woods’ recent crash to Ben Hogan’s 1949 crash are inevitable, but flawed

Not long after I first heard about Tiger Woods’ recent car crash, I began to dread the inevitable comparisons to Ben Hogan’s well-known crash, on February 2nd, 1949—and they weren’t long in coming. What I didn’t anticipate was a validation of their similarity, even with qualifications, from James Dodson, the author of one of the two most notable biographies of Ben Hogan. In response to queries of, “Isn’t this like history repeating itself?”, Dodson replied (in this column: With Crash Came Echoes of Hogan) with a qualified “yes”:

“…there are striking similarities in these tragedies as well as eerie echoes of each man’s struggle to reach the summit of the game only to pay a price for becoming the best in the world. In each case, though they were stars from very different eras, both also experienced something of a personal awakening—even redemption—along the way.”

(Insert face-palm emoji here.)

Right off the bat I take issue with the characterization of Woods’ February 23rd, 2021 crash as a tragedy. The injuries to his right leg, though serious, were not life-threatening, and no medical opinion has been expressed that casts serious doubt on his ability to walk or play golf again. There has been a lot of speculation about his ability to come back and play as well as he has in the past, but frankly, due in large part to his multiple back surgeries (the cumulative result of the violent lashing action of his swing over many years), his best years are well behind him, and have been for over a decade.

Woods’ crash can only be construed as a tragedy by sycophantic fans who consider him the be-all and end-all of the game of golf, and by any reasonable estimation can only be construed as being his own fault.

On the other hand, Hogan’s crash, which was entirely the fault of the driver of that Greyhound bus, came within a hairsbreadth of being a tragedy in the event, as only the last-second act of flinging himself across the seat to shield his wife preventing his being crushed against the back of the seat by the steering wheel and steering column of the car as they were shoved into the passenger compartment by the impact. There could still have been a tragic result in the aftermath of the crash, because his life was threatened by blood clots that formed in his damaged lower body and moved to his heart and lungs. Only timely intervention in the form of a complex, invasive surgical procedure, which saved his life but impaired the blood flow to and from his legs, prevented an ultimate tragic result for Hogan.

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

I am also having a problem with the comparison related by the statement “…eerie echoes of each man’s struggle to reach the summit of the game only to pay a price for becoming the best in the world.”

How can Hogan’s crash be construed as “…pay(ing) a price for becoming the best in the world”? Don’t bother answering, I will: it can’t. It was the sort of thing that could have happened to anyone who happened to be driving along with all due care only to be victimized by the carelessness and poor judgement of another driver.

On the other hand, Woods’ latest automotive mishap, as well as the others, involved only himself (thankfully) and some combination of drugs and the consequences of his own bad judgement and bad behavior. Looked at in a certain way, refracted through a prism of fanboyish worship and a willful disregard for assigning fault, Woods’ most recent crash could be construed as arising from his well-publicized ruthless pursuit of perfection, and his frustration at not living up to his self-imposed goals. Entire books have been (and will continue to be) written about this.

The bottom line on that aspect of the issue is that Hogan achieved arguably his greatest professional and personal success after the car crash that left him with life-threatening complications. He was in the hospital for 59 days and at great risk of never being able to play golf again, yet he came back to rack up 11 wins (of which six were majors) in the six years following his accident, and this on a limited schedule—for example, in 1951 he played only five tournaments, and won three of them (including the Masters and the U. S. Open).

Woods’ return after the fire-hydrant incident and the subsequent implosion of his personal life and public reputation looked like this: two winless seasons in 2010 and 2011, then a mini-comeback with three and five wins, respectively, in 2012 and 2013 (playing 19 and 16 events in those years), before another round of back injuries and personal complications brought on the longest winless stretch of his career, from 2014 to 2017. 

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

Ben Hogan’s personal awakening in the wake of his crash consisted of a man who had always been something of a loner realizing that he had fans, that people liked him and were pulling for him to recover from the horrific injuries he had suffered. It was a sea change in his outlook on life that helped him persevere through his recovery and subsequent return to championship form.

Woods’ personal awakening in the wake of either or both of his earlier traffic misadventures, to the extent that he had one, was more along the lines of, “Holy s**t, I may lose sponsors (reader, he did…) if I don’t get my act together!” Woods also engaged in rehabilitation for substance and sex addictions, as a well as a public (and painful) mea culpa as a bone thrown to the general public (and potential future sponsors).  

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

Ultimately, the only similarity between the two events lies in the fact that they were vehicle crashes that involved a professional golfer; the differences are much more significant.

Ben and Valerie’s Cadillac was plowed into by a Greyhound bus when an inexperienced bus driver attempted to unsafely pass a truck, on a bridge, in foggy, low-visibility conditions, to make up time and keep to his schedule. 

Tiger’s crash took place at approximately 7:12 am on a clear sunny day, on a lightly traveled (in these pandemic times) road that was dry and in good condition. The physical evidence at the scene indicated that his vehicle continued in a straight line as the road curved gently to the right, crossing a low median divider and two opposing-traffic lanes (luckily, there were no other vehicles in those lanes at the time), exiting the roadway, taking out a tree, and flipping/rolling to a stop in the “natural area” adjacent to the roadway.

So what caused it? Was it impairment? Inattention? Speculation is rampant, and fueled partially by the actions (or inaction) of the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department.

The LACSD declined to obtain blood toxicology information when Woods was taken to a local hospital, relying instead on the assessment of a deputy on the scene—a deputy who was untrained in the identification of clues of impairment—who said that Woods seemed lucid and in possession of his faculties in the aftermath of the accident.

Independent traffic-accident investigators who have reviewed the available information about the incident have questioned that decision, and late-breaking information about Woods’ responses, specifically  the fact that he twice told deputies on the scene that didn’t remember how the accident happened and didn’t even remember driving, have raised further questions.

Woods is known to have had issues with the sleep aid Ambien in the past, a medication which carries a warning about impairment a day after taking it, impairment that includes disorientation and memory loss.

Several articles published in the weeks following Woods’ crash have stated that investigators have sought access to the vehicle’s so-called “black box” (actually an event data recorder, or EDR), but that device is unlikely to tell them much that cannot already be gleaned from the evidence at the accident site. An EDR collects data such as vehicle speed, throttle position, brake application, airbag deployment, seatbelt use, steering angles and other data for a period of about 20 seconds before the crash, during the crash, and 20 seconds after the crash.

This type of information is used by vehicle manufacturers to determine if a mechanical malfunction was a contributing factor in a crash, but it is not necessarily going to be strongly indicative of human-error factors that may have precipitated an incident. For that, other avenues of investigation have to be pursued.

Phone records, and blood toxicity reports (if available), would allow investigators to determine if inattention or physical impairment were causal factors—and should be pursued. If another vehicle had been involved and innocent people in that car had been injured or killed these factors would certainly not have been ignored. Even lacking that complication the seriousness of this accident would warrant a thorough investigation to determine its cause in order to support a charge of DWI or reckless driving.

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

I’ll be honest—I have never understood the rah-rah enthusiasm of Tiger’s fan base, which drove a frenzied outpouring of well-wishes and “thoughts and prayers” comments that has washed over social media like a tidal wave in the three weeks since he crashed that SUV. Of course only a sociopath wouldn’t wish him as complete a recovery as possible, if only for the sake of his future life as a parent to his two kids, but the level of grief and outpouring of emotion for injuries that weren’t life-threatening surpasses understanding in my book, especially when those injuries were his own fault.

Various columns that have come out since the crash have warned Woods’ fans not to expect a rousing comeback—an assessment that is based on: a) his age, and b) the pre-existing physical issues that have already taken their toll on his game, so the apex of their hopes, that he will equal or surpass Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 major victories, is essentially out of the question.

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

To reiterate: the cold, hard fact of the matter is that the only commonalities between the crash that broke Tiger Woods’ leg and the crash that narrowly missed claiming the lives of Ben Hogan and his wife, Valerie, is that they were automobile crashes that each involved a professional golfer. The two men were in very different places in their careers when their respective crashes occurred, and the incidents happened under very different circumstances, for very different reasons—namely, Ben Hogan was hit by a bus, and Tiger Woods threw himself in front of one.

A handy gadget that’s good for your game – the Grooveit Wet Club Scrub

I can’t think of another game or sport which is as replete with gadgets as the game of golf, and all aspects of the game are involved, from practice to playing. From training aids that are guaranteed (guaranteed!) to fix your sliced/chunked/topped shots, give you ten more yards on your drives, or help you guide your putts unerringly to the cup; to data-gathering devices that work with an app on your phone (doesn’t everything work with an app on your phone these days?) to help you analyze the weaknesses in your game; to specially shaped tees that will straighten out your drives or add ten yards (there’s that ten-more-yards thing again…), there’s a gadget for everything.

I’m a mechanical engineer by education and vocation, and I like a handy device as much as the next person—but I am also something of a minimalist. While many of the gadgets and gizmos that are intended for on-course use fall, in my estimation, too much on the “intrusive” side of the “useful-to-intrusive” spectrum, I am always on the lookout for handy gadgets that makes a necessary task easier to complete. One such device is the GrooveIt Wet Club Scrub, which makes cleaning your club faces a quick and efficient task.

One of the most-often heard tips for getting the most out of your irons’ and wedges’ performance features is “keep your clubs clean”, and with the GrooveIt this vital little bit of on-course housekeeping is easy to accomplish.

The GrooveIt is basically a “T”-shaped brush which incorporates a spray bottle, which can be filled with water or a cleaning solution, in the handle (I use Windex in mine). Press the plunger button on the end of the handle a couple of times to spray the cleaning solution through the face of the brush onto your club, and a quick scrub will clear dirt and grass from the club face to help ensure that you get every bit of benefit from the grooves and milled textures that are put there to maximize ball-to-club interaction.

The GrooveIt is equipped with a spring carabiner to secure it to the accessories loop on your golf bag so it is always accessible. It is attached to the carabiner with a scarily strong self-aligning magnetic connector, so there is no need to work the spring carabiner every time you use the brush—just give it a yank to pull it away, and wave the connector-half on the brush in the general vicinity of the one on the bag to reconnect. To be honest, this magnetic connector impresses me as much as the spritz-and-scrub function of the brush, but I would be careful about allowing that magnet anywhere near electronic devices or your credit cards—I would fully expect it to play havoc with anything that is sensitive to strong magnetic fields.

Whether you carry, use a granny cart, or ride, the GrooveIt is a handy accessory that you will be glad to have clipped to your bag.

If you are going to gripe about the Pebble Beach Pro-Am, get your facts straight.

On the Monday after the final round of the 2021 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, a GolfWRX.com contributor named Ronald Montesano pulled up his soapbox and summed up the event, taking the opportunity to laud the absence of amateurs (thank you, COVID-19), take shots at the native Californians in the event who didn’t win, and generally pitch in his uninformed two-cents worth from a part of the country where golf courses lie sleeping under blankets of snow from October to May.

PEBBLE BEACH, CALIFORNIA - FEBRUARY 13: Tom Hoge of the United States plays his second shot on the ninth hole during the third round of the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am at Pebble Beach Golf Links on February 13, 2021 in Pebble Beach, California. (Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images)

I read his piece (Berger wins at Pebble, golf world wakes up) with much head-shaking, and considered scrolling down to the Comments section to set him straight on a few points—but then I decided that I would get a bigger audience here.

This is what I have to say to Ronald: 

“You really should do some research before you sit down at your computer in the frozen tundra of Buffalo, New York and start pounding, monkey-like, at the keyboard, Ron.

“Referring to the Crosby Clambake in your latest Tour Rundown article, you wrote, ‘That event went through an evolution, from a few friends in the California desert to a move to the coast, to a short stay in North Carolina (without the PGA Tour, of course) when AT&T took over the title on tour.’ This sentence runs the gamut from grossly misconstrued to factually incorrect, so let me enlighten you.”

The Crosby Pro-Am was never held in the desert. The event that we now know as the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am can trace its earliest roots to 1934, to an informal gathering of Bing’s celebrity friends at the Old Brockway Golf Course on Lake Tahoe’s North Shore. In 1937 Bing moved the get-together to Rancho Santa Fe, just north of San Diego, where he had a house on the back nine. This is when the pro-am really began, with Crosby pairing touring pros with amateur players drawn from the ranks of his show-business friends, and the member of the Lakeside Golf Club in Hollywood, where he was a member (and five-time club champion).

“The Clambake” as the event came to be called, named for the closing-night beach party, ran for five years in Rancho Santa Fe before the Second World War called a halt, but in 1947 civic leaders in Monterey convinced Crosby to revive the event and move it to the Monterey Peninsula, where it became the National Pro-Am Golf Championship. From the beginning of its run at Pebble Beach, the tournament was a charity event that supported local causes, and it has remained so for 75 years.

As for “…a short stay in North Carolina”, well, when AT&T took over as the presenting sponsor in 1986, dropping the Crosby name (and Crosby family involvement) from the tournament, Bing’s second wife, Kathryn Crosby, started a somewhat look-alike charity tournament in the Winston-Salem, North Carolina area called the Bing Crosby National Celebrity Golf Tournament. Running from 1986 until 2001, this event did feature both amateur and professional players, but they did not play together in pro-am pairings. (Kathryn Crosby was responsible for the sell-off of the naming rights to AT&T, for a cool half-million dollars.)

Of course, in this COVID-19 year all golf tournaments have looked different, with, as of this writing, only one—the Waste Management Phoenix Open—allowing spectators (and then only a fraction of the usual number), and the Pebble Beach Pro-Am was no different.

For the first time, there were no crowds of spectators lining the fairways and clustered around the greens, and not only that, there were no amateur playing partners—so the event was a “pro-am” in name, but not in fact. Cutting down the field to just the 156 pros brought in another change from previous years—the move to two golf courses, Pebble Beach and Spyglass Hill, leaving the third course of recent years, the Monterey Peninsula Country Club’s Shore Course, off the roster.

Montesano had something to say about all this, too (another mixed bag of mostly bad takes):

“Should the amateurs return? In one word: No. We don’t love golf for the antics of the celebrities, and we don’t need to see corporate types […] play well on a big stage.”

While the 2021 event had a different look from its seventy-four predecessors, without the amateur participants it just looked like a better version of a regular PGA Tour stop (because, hey, Pebble Beach and Spyglass Hill). The pros might have liked the (relatively) quicker pace of play and shorter rounds, but those who play this event regularly missed the networking opportunities that the tournament has always provided—many a lucrative sponsorship or other business relationship has had its beginning in a pairing at Pebble Beach.

And sure, this is no longer the Golden Age of radio, movies, and TV, and the celebrity roster has, in recent years, lost a bit of the glamour of the past. No longer do stars of the magnitude of Phil Harris, James Garner, Jack Lemmon, and Clint Eastwood stride down the fairways during the event, but there is a new generation coming up who have name recognition and a love for the game that matches the big names of yore.

The lone celebrity event that remained on the schedule this year, a Wednesday five-hole charity shootout, included stars of the worlds of movies and TV (Bill Murray, Alfonso Ribeiro, and Kathryn Newton), music (hip-hop recording artist Macklemore), sports (Arizona Cardinals WR Larry Fitzgerald), and even a former Miss America (Kira K. Dixon). This mini field of celebrity golfers all have stick, and put on a good show while raising a wad of cash for the event’s causes.

PEBBLE BEACH, CALIFORNIA - FEBRUARY 10:  Kira K. Dixon tees off on the 18th hole during the Charity Challenge at AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am on February 10, 2021 at Pebble Beach Golf Links in Pebble Beach, California. (Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images)

And even the corporate CEOs and other deep-pockets participants have their place. Sure these folks are almost all members at swanky private clubs, and while they may play more golf than many of us, on better golf courses, they don’t play for a living like the pros they are paired with. Watching them play alongside a pro in this event allows us to vicariously put our games up against the highest standard in the world—and that chance at comparison has entertainment value.

The celebrity watching which makes Saturday of tournament week (when the biggest names are scheduled at Pebble Beach) the best-attended day of the tournament broadens the scope of attraction for this event beyond golfers. I have seen a bigger gallery following a pairing which included a San Francisco Giants pitcher than I think I have ever seen following any of the pros.

“Why might the amateurs stay? Some would point to the origin of the event, as the Bing Crosby Clambake. It’s the last event that folks from past generations (little dig there, I think – GKM) associate with a celebrity host; [no other event has] had that staying power.”

I can sum it up in one word: tradition. Bing Crosby invented this format, and while imitators sprang up over the years, the Pebble Beach Pro-Am—the original and the greatest—is the only one that still survives. The Bob Hope Desert Classic came closest to the format of the Crosby, but that event, and all of the rest of the celebrity-name events on the PGA Tour over the years have either morphed into something else or faded away entirely.

I grew up in Salinas, an inland farming community not far from Pebble Beach, and though neither I nor any of my friends or family played golf when I was growing up, everybody knew the Crosby, and watched it on TV on those January or February weekends in the ’60s and ’70s.

“The AT&T has the opportunity to reimagine its event, (to) make the bold decision to eliminate the Am portion of the event. Return the Monterey Peninsula (Country Club) Shore Course to the rotation next year (and) add even more professionals…”

Here Mr Montesano is off-base in more ways than one. As I laid out above, the amateur participants are a huge part of this tournament’s appeal, and an enduring tradition that has no counterpart in the world of golf. Eliminating that aspect of the tournament would change it into just another PGA Tour event, albeit an exceptionally beautiful one, as no other venue that the Tour travels to can provide such scenic vistas.

Yes, we look forward to the return of the MPCC Shore Course to the event; it is a beautiful and strategic seaside layout that takes good advantage of its location, and being private, its inclusion provides golf fans with an opportunity to see the course that they otherwise would not have. As for adding even more professionals—while going back to three courses and a 54-hole cut with no amateurs might make it feasible, schedule-wise, to bump up the standard 156-player field, such a move would require approval from the PGA Tour, and, I warrant, the Players Advisory Committee.

To sum up: While I admit to a certain bias, having grown up in the area watching this event on TV, and now, as a golf writer, having attended the event in a professional capacity for eight years in a row, I look forward to a return to normality (hopefully) for the 2022 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am; a return to throngs of spectators, and amateur playing partners—both celebrities and CEOs; a return to three courses and a 54-hole cut; a return to the traditions that make this tournament stand out, head-and-shoulders above the rest of the cookie-cutter events on the PGA Tour.

A return to all the things that make this tournament the one that we who love it still call “The Crosby”.

(References for facts presented in this article: Cover Stories, a publication of the Monterey Peninsula Foundation Book Project Staff, 2009; 18 Holes with Bing, by Nathaniel Crosby with John Strege, Harper Collins Publishers, 2016)