A calm assessment of the threat Assembly Bill 672 poses to municipal golf in California

Assembly Bill 672, the brainchild of California State Assembly member Cristina Garcia (D–Bell Gardens), poses a threat to municipal golf in California; that is, public golf courses that are owned by cities or counties—but how big a threat? Some responses to the proposed legislation have verged on the hysterical, but I think that a closer look at the wording of the bill, and a wider evaluation of the situation, is called for.

What would it do?

This much is true: the gist of the bill’s intent is to incentivize local agencies (city and county governments) to close down municipal golf courses and convert them to sites for housing. The bill’s text specifies that 25% of the housing is to be “affordable to, and occupied by” low-income households (as defined by the Health and Safety Code), and that 15% of the development is to be publicly accessible open space—but with this twist-of-the-knife proviso: space used as a golf course shall not be considered open space.

Some of the response to AB 672 have been needlessly reactionary; for example, this Golfweekheadline: “Could all California golf courses be converted to housing? A new bill proposes just that”, and a post on the Uken Report website that predicts that local muni courses in the Palm Springs area would be turned into homeless camps should this legislation be passed. The fact that these extreme takes aren’t realistic doesn’t mean that there is no cause for concern.

The Legislative Counsel’s Digest (a summary, of sorts, of the bill’s effect) on the AB 672 page on the California Legislative information website gives the following assessment of the bill in its current form: “This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require the [Department of Housing and Community Development] to administer a program to provide incentives in the form of grants to local agencies that enter into a development agreement to convert a golf course owned by the local agency into housing and publicly accessible open space, as specified.”

Not exactly a smoking gun, but slightly worrisome even in its vagueness.

Changes over time

The bill, which was originally introduced in February 2021, has been amended four times, and while some of the revisions have weakened the bill’s proposed directives, changes which make it less radical also increase its palatability and may boost its chances of passing.

For example: the March 18th, 2021 version of the bill would have removed protection for municipal golf courses under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a radical and unquestionably anti-environment move, but one which would have greatly simplified the process of converting what had been protected green space to residential uses. This provision was removed in the next amended version of the bill for the very simple reason (as I am informed by my wife, a career land-use/urban planner) that it is not possible to simply exclude a development project from CEQA. Can’t be done.

The next version, amended in Assembly on April 6th, 2021, would have required city, county, or city and county entities to rezone municipally owned golf courses to allow residential or open-space uses. The word “require” carries weight, making this version of the bill more worrisome, but again, the wording of the bill was amended in committee, and this proviso was removed.

(Also removed from the verbiage of the bill was a reference to the terms of the legislation being applied to “under-utilized” golf courses, but if you have tried to get a good tee-time any time in the last 12–15 months, you know that there is no such thing as an under-utilized golf course in California these days.)

Too clever by half?

Ms Garcia is making what I am sure she and her staff consider to be a clever two-pronged attack with this bill. First, proposing a solution (of sorts) to a problem which everyone acknowledges—the shortage of affordable housing in California, especially in the urban centers—but a solution which will only affect people who play golf; and second, making a show of being progressive and populist by attacking golf, which everyone knows is a terrible elitist game that is only played by ROWMs (Rich Old White Men), thus gaining favor among know-nothing would-be do-gooders who would willingly trade golf-course space for “affordable” housing.

Careful examination of the text of the bill shows that everything about it, from the early, more openly antagonistic versions to the current relatively toothless version, reeks of uninformed antagonism and borderline incompetence on the part of Ms Garcia and her staff.

The since-removed CEQA proviso should never have seen the light of day, and the requirement that local agencies rezone municipally owned golf courses is the kind of over-the-top direct action that will always raise flags in proposed legislation—these versions demonstrate, to an experienced reviewer, that neither Ms Garcia or her staff are really on the ball.

The other aspect of the bill: the singling out of golf courses, among all possible land uses, is redolent of the kind of misguided populist-elite thinking à la Malcolm Gladwell that informs attacks on golf as an elitist game for rich white men.

Ill-conceived – but still worrisome

While the likelihood of this bill being passed, and thus having a measurable impact on the availability of municipal golf in California, is low, the embracing of this clichéd antagonism toward the game of golf is still worrisome.

Even in its current, weaker, form, AB 672 represents an attack on the game of golf because it still singles out golf courses for this “incentive program”. No other open-space use is cited—not soccer fields, not baseball or softball diamonds, not dog parks, not playgrounds. Golf courses, and only golf courses, are mentioned by the bill. The current version of the bill is vague in its wording, and virtually toothless, but it is worth the attention of the golf community to keep an eye on AB 672, because it represents a potential “thin end of the wedge”. 

A hair-shirt take that only a Pope could love

A recent post on the Lying Four golf-blog site posits the bill as a call to action for the game of golf:

“This episode should be a learning opportunity for golf—a chance to rededicate itself to changing its elitist practices (and, in turn, the reputation), if only out of the self-interest that the California bill exposes.”

The post on Lying Four also mentions that passage of AB 672 would unfairly target one segment of the golf-playing population (and by far the largest), making them pay (potentially) for the sins of the other, which is true—but goes on to say that golf, as a game, must:

“…[resist] the temptation that elites often indulge: to shut themselves away behind strong walls, and to assume therein their safety.

The California bill shows that tendency’s fallacy: the public is at the walls. We can either invite them in, or wait for them to tear down the walls on their terms.”

While it looks more realistically at the governmental aspects of AB 672 than many of the articles and analyses posted over the eleven months since the bill was introduced, the Lying Four column presents something of an hysterical response in itself, assuming that the people and organizations that comprise “the game of golf” are going to adopt the same elitist attitude that is assumed to be universal in golf by people who support actions such as that which AB 672 proposes. The column’s author doesn’t give any examples of ways in which “golf” can push back against the elitist stereotyping of the game, so the article is less of a call to action than it is a strident scolding that is waiting to be turned into an “I-told-you-so”.

In my opinion, the author of the Lying Four column is assuming something of a “mea culpa” attitude, and while golf, as a sport, must have a care as to the way the non-golf-playing public perceives it, supporting existing education campaigns by industry organizations is a better way to do this than the sanctimonious finger-wagging and hand-wringing approach that this column presents.

The Bottom Line

I don’t see AB 672, in its current state, having much chance of passing. It is a grandstand play by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, but one which was ill-conceived and, so far, incompetently executed.

But… despite its weaknesses, AB 672 represents a calculated attack on an industry that employs 128,000 people in the state of California, representing a total economic output of some $6.3 billion in 2021, and $4.1 billion in wages, while providing a healthful outdoor exercise experience that has been shown to have a positive effect on longevity and general well-being.

The golf industry must remain vigilant in the face of attacks of this kind, fighting back with facts, not hysteria, about the economic, health, and environmental benefits of the game of golf—which have positive effects up and down the economic spectrum—and stave off the ill-informed haters and opportunistic politicians who would restrict, or at worst, shut down, the game we love.

Betting on golf – growing the game, or just increasing the revenue stream?

Last summer, as the opening rounds of the 2020 U.S. Women’s Open were being played, I read a social-media post relating the news that Sei Young Kim, the pre-tourney favorite and only player in the field with single-digit outright odds, had opened 4-7-5-4, and was four-over after the first four holes. I responded, somewhat in jest, as follows:

“Exhibit # 1 in the case against betting on golf.”

That post prompted an offline response from a longtime golf writer who has made the move into covering the betting side of the game:

“Or... don’t bet a 6/1 favorite? The “don’t bet golf” crowd is silliness.”

“Call me silly, then, because I feel that bringing betting into any sport is never a good idea. Gambling of all kinds has long-standing ties to organized crime, and it enables addictive behavior.”

“Oh jeez. That’s exactly why every single tour/league is fighting to have it legalized. The impact on fan investment/engagement is immeasurable. The NFL is 10% of what it is without gambling/fantasy.”

“Even legalized it’s marginal behavior.”

“…says the vocal minority.”

“Guilty as charged, and no regrets.”

“Can’t tell you how much better my job is since leaving traditional media and covering the game from a betting perspective. Also can’t tell you how many people from those traditional media places are losing their jobs every week and trying to come work for us. Not that any of that will or should change your mind, but dismissing sports gaming as “bad” is a huge whiff right now.”

“To each his own. I guess I’m lucky that I cover golf as a sideline, freelance gig, so I feel no pressure to jump on the betting bandwagon. My objections to sports betting are philosophical, and I don’t see betting improving the sport in any way except to open up another revenue stream for the corporate entities that run it.”

“I have so many friends—let alone Twitter followers, radio listeners, etc.—who were never big golf fans, but have started betting a few bucks on it each week or playing a few DFS lineups, which has turned them into massive fans. For an industry that has literally tried everything to ‪#growthegame the engagement this has forged—from new and often younger fan—is well beyond any other attempt to carve that personal investment.”

“Do they play, or just bet on the pros? Because just betting isn’t ‘growing the game.’”

“Oh, does growing the game only mean people playing more? Why wouldn’t it also mean more people consuming the product and paying greater attention on a more frequent basis? Why should we limit growing the game simply to more people playing?”

“You know, before it morphed into a larger discussion, this started as a joking reference to the wild uncertainty of betting on golf.

No, I don’t think that ‘more people consuming the product and paying greater attention on a more frequent basis’ comprises ‘growing the game’. Gambling on golf, or any sport, reduces the attention on the game to considerations of who wins or loses, or who covered the spread, or whatever, removing considerations of the beauty of execution, the satisfaction of achievement that, to me, lie at the heart of sport.

I am happy for you and all the other media folks who have lost their jobs writing about the actual playing of golf, and have found new homes promoting the gambling side of the game, but ‘growing the game’ means playing the game and/or appreciating the game, even if only as a spectator, for its intrinsic qualities, not increasing the depth of the betting pools. ”

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

As I noted in my last comment in the string above, this discussion began as a joking reference to the uncertainty of betting on golf, but I have strong feelings about the other two threads that it branched into: 1) the morality of sports betting; and 2) whether legalizing betting on golf can really be characterized as “growing the game”.

I’m not going to stand up on a soapbox and preach too much about the morality of gambling on sports, but I will say this: Gambling is a known addictive behavior, and it has historically been associated (for good reason) with criminal influences being brought to bear to affect the outcome of sporting events. We all hate those guys who shout things at players on the course, right? You know, the “Get in the hole!” and “Mashed potatoes!” crowd. Well, think about it—how long will it be before some punter with a barrel of cash on a match yells during a player’s swing, intentionally, or steps on a ball in the rough? And what about the possibility of more sinister forces coming into play, like gambling syndicates influencing outcomes from behind the scenes? It has happened in boxing, in horse racing—why not golf?

As for the question of gambling “growing the game”, does increasing the fan base by the addition of eyes on the TV coverage, eyes that are only there because they’ve got money riding on the outcome, mean “growing the game”? Television coverage of golf has started to include the betting line on players that are in contention, and the talking heads in the booths refer to the odds on a player as often as they refer to the difficulty of the shot the player faces, the lie their ball is in, or their stats. It has become ubiquitous, pervasive—even during the TV coverage of the Ryder Cup, a competition that is supposed to be about no more than national pride and bragging rights, with no prize purse at stake, the broadcast made mention of the betting line.

“Growing the game” through betting only increases the revenue stream associated with the game, putting money in the pockets of the tour organizations that sanction it and the other corporate entities that back it and push it as the end-all and be-all purpose behind the game. Betting on golf doesn’t get more people out on the course or the range and it doesn’t increase sales of golf equipment or create jobs in the golf industry—the things that really represent growth in the golf industry, the things that really mean “growing the game”.

Of course, while growing the game means increasing participation and getting more people playing the game, more importantly it means increasing accessibility to the opportunity to play the game. This means making golf welcoming and available to everybody who wants to play, regardless of age, gender, race, or income level.

According to National Golf Foundation data there has been an 11% decrease in the golf facility supply in the United States since 2006, an increase that has been, in their words, “disproportionately concentrated in value-priced courses (less than $40 green fee).” That means that there is work to be done to keep golf accessible and affordable, but is that accomplished by pushing gambling on golf as the next big thing, by including odds and the betting line in televised golf, by replacing an appreciation for the beauty and skill of execution in the game with cold calculation of the odds and anticipation only of the monetary benefit of a player’s performance relative to the betting line?

No—no, it isn’t.

“Make Your Next Shot Your Best Shot”: Latest from Bob Rotella is more of the same: blah-blah-blah, rah-rah-rah ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹

Golfers are a conundrum, psychologically speaking. They are at once the most hopeful, and most pessimistic, people you will ever encounter—hoping for the best but not daring to expect it, and chasing perfection in an imperfect world, they are certain that a change of clubs, a change in their swing, a new golf ball, a fancy new grip on their putter, a different pair of shoes—almost anything, in fact—will make all the difference. Some change, some magic bullet, is all they need to open up the wonderful world of fairways and greens hit, of putts made; the world of breaking 100, 90, or 80, of low handicaps and strokes given, not gotten.

Professional golfers, as you might expect, take this to the extreme (or at least many of them do.) Take the frustration that we feel as recreational players and multiply it by factoring in the pressure of making a living for yourself— and your caddie, if you have a regular looper—or providing for your family. It’s easy to see how professionals golfers get wrapped up in their own heads and end up turning to “gurus” like Bob Rotella to guide them back out of the dark places their minds go to when fairways elude them and putts don’t drop.

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

I freely admit to being skeptical when it comes to mental-game “self-help” books; as a wise man once said, “The very fact that self-help books exist is proof that they don’t work.” In fact, I am more than skeptical: I think they’re pointless nonsense, and Make Your Next Shot Your Best Shot, the latest book from Dr. Bob Rotella, does nothing to change my mind.

Supporting my case for that point of view is the choice of golfer to write the foreword to this book: Padraig Harrington. Don’t get me wrong, I think Paddy Harrington is a great guy; a real gentleman, and one of the best interviews in golf. He gives thoughtful answers to good questions—sometimes rather long and rambling, but responsive and well thought-out. But… Paddy won the Open Championship two years in a row, in 2007 & 2008 (not so unusual a feat, actually—it has been done nine times since 1900, including six times post World War II), and was ranked as high as #3 in the world—and then he decided that he needed to change his swing. 

Why would he do that? He was right up there at the pinnacle of his sport, and even followed his 2008 Open Championship win with a PGA Championship later that year. And the result of changing his swing? Within a couple of years he had dropped out of the Top 25, and a few years later began a slide that saw him bottom out at #385 in the world by late 2014.

To me, Paddy Harrington is a great example of the way that pro golfers sometimes can’t get out of their own way—so maybe they do need someone like Dr Bob whispering in their ear—but to me all of this “mental game” stuff is just common sense and can be boiled down to a few simple concepts: Play within yourself, know your game, know (and trust) your abilities; or in the (paraphrased) words of my favorite golf writer, Dan Jenkins (as spoken by pro-golfer character Bobby Joe Grooves in Dan’s golf novel Slim and None): “…keep your mind from jacking with your swing when you haven’t invited it to the shot.”

Maybe it’s because my competitive background is in two very different sports (different both from golf and from each other): motorcycle racing and gymnastics. These are sports in which you are on your own—no caddie holding your hand and giving you advice—and in which the consequences of poor choices or indecisiveness can be severe. In the case of motorcycle racing it can be high-speed crashes (been there, done that); in gymnastics it’s flying off of the apparatus in an unintended manner and landing on something other than your feet (had some close calls…). 

As consequences go, drowning a new Pro V1 in the hazard fronting a long par-3, or three-putting from four feet to turn a birdie into a bogey—well, they sort of pale in comparison, and what this means is that I learned my self-reliance skills in a school of hard knocks, and I didn’t need the words of a self-help guru like “Dr Bob” to guide me on my way.

This book is replete with pithy, self-help-ish chapter titles like “You Are What You Think About Yourself”, “Believing In You and Your Game”, and “A Quiet Mind Will Set Your Talent Free” – all sounding very self-help-seminar-at-the-convention-center, and all very eye-roll inducing.

All I can say about Make Your Next Shot Your Best Shot is that the several hours one might spend reading this book, and the $27.00 + tax that you would spend to buy it, would be better spent at your local golf course, just getting out and playing the game—and figuring it out for yourself.

Langer’s charge at PURE Insurance event is narrowly derailed; K.J. Choi notches first senior win

Pebble Beach, CA – 9/26/2021

While the 2021 European Ryder Cup team were hanging on grimly and putting on brave faces back in Wisconsin at Herb Kohler’s “Monster on Lake Michigan”, Whistling Straits, on the final day of the 2021 Ryder Cup, a former European Ryder Cup stalwart was out on the West Coast making a bid for a victory at a much more hospitable venue – Pebble Beach Golf Links – in the PGA Tour Champions event, the 2021 PURE Insurance Championship (AKA The First Tee Open).

“The PURE Insurance Championship Impacting The First Tee”, to give it its full name, is a low-key event that should be on every Central California golf fan’s go-and-see list. With free admission, small crowds, and a September schedule slot that pretty much guarantees good weather, this event is the best way to watch golf at Pebble Beach Golf Links.

The last three years have seen the event butting up against the PGA Tour’s season opener in Napa in 2019, the rescheduled U.S. Open in 2020, and this year, the Ryder Cup — a PGA Tour Champions event is a hard sell against that kind of competition.

Speaking of the Ryder Cup, the 2021 PURE Insurance event saw a former European Ryder Cup stalwart, Bernhard Langer, in the thick of things, even while his former team were taking an historic drubbing at Whistling Straits, going down 19–9 in the most lopsided result in modern-day Ryder Cup history.

Following a first-round 71 with a six-under 66 on Saturday, Langer came into the final round trailing leader K.J. Choi by two strokes. Choi, who was chasing his first PGA Tour Champions win, opened with rounds of 67 and 68, ultimately posting a final round 68 to cement his first win on the senior tour. That “two stroke” number figured strongly in the final result, both as Choi’s final margin of victory over T-2 finishers Langer and fellow countryman Alex Cejka, and as the value of the biggest stumble of Langer's round.

After starting the final round with a two-stroke deficit, Langer fell further behind Choi through the opening nine, going out in three-under 33 with birdies on holes 1, 5 and 6, while Choi went out in 31 with a birdie on 2 and a string of four more on holes 5 through 8. At Hole #10, the 437-yard par-four that marks the farthest point of the course, his drive came afoul of the left-side fairway bunker complex and he could do no better than coming out to the primary rough with his second shot, from which he took two more shots to get to the green and one-putt for a double-bogey six.

After playing to a birdie on the deceptively difficult par-four eleventh hole on the strength of a beautifully placed approach to five feet below the hole, and two-putting for par on the par-three twelfth, Langer again came to grief at the 403-yard par-four thirteenth hole.

With the hole located in the new “annex” to the green in the back right that is so tempting, and testing, Langer fired his approach shot right at the flag, but couldn’t hold the green. The ball skipped off the back of the putting surface and rolled through the closely mown area before coming to rest just inside the main cut of rough. A delicate chip into the closely mown upslope still carried enough speed to roll out on the down-sloping green to about 12 feet below the hole, but his superbly paced uphill putt performed a 90º lip-out and came to rest two inches from the hole, resulting in a hard-fought bogey that dropped him further off of Choi’s pace.

Fighting back over the remaining five holes, Langer made up another stroke with a birdie on the long, tough par-five 14th hole, shooting from 130 yards out to perfect position on the dining-room-table-sized flat area on the right side of the putting surface that is a traditional Sunday hole location, rolling in a dead-straight six-foot putt for a four

Putting out for par on #15 (and though he could not have known it, just as Collin Morikawa was finishing up with a tie on the 18th hole to clinch the Ryder Cup for the United States), Langer followed up with another par on 16 after his 30+ foot uphill birdie putt drifted right to miss by a bare two inches.

A laser-like approach shot to six feet or so above the traditional back-left flag on the par-three 7th hole led to a welcome birdie for Langer, who then ran into a little bit of trouble off the tee on Pebble’s iconic par-five closing hole. Though Langer, not being a notable long-ball hitter off the tee, would not be expected to go for the 18th green in two, his tee shot’s placement took away any possibility.

Coming to rest toward the right side of the fairway and well clear of the bunker complex, Langer’s ball was nevertheless dead blocked by the remaining fairway tree about 35 yards ahead. While this second shot from that location was a conundrum that might have stumped a lesser player, Langer solved it with a stunning 180-yard stinger that went under the canopy on the right side of the tree, shaping itself along the right-hand curve of the fairway’s edge and never rising higher than perhaps a dozen feet off of the ground.

Langer’s second shot on #18 today might be the best shot seen and noted by the fewest people in the history of this golf hole.

Following his second shot with a well-placed 130-yard pop to the green, the Münchener rolled in the birdie putt from above the hole to finish with a four-under 68 and a three-round total of 205, 11 under par.

In the meantime, leader K. J. Choi was holding onto, but not extending, his lead. Choi ultimately finished his round with a back-nine 37, bookmarking a bogey on 14 with matching sets of four pars before and after to finish at 13-under and clinch his first win on the PGA Tour Champions.

In terms of Bernhard Langer’s round, the difference between him racking up his 42nd senior-tour win (to equal his 42 European Tour wins) and K. J. Choi notching his first came down to the double-bogey on 10, and the bogey on 13 – a fairway bunker and a lipped-out putt. This shows that, even on the 50-plus circuit, the talent pool is deep and the competition is still fierce.

Ben Hogan owns a unique Ryder Cup record that may never be equaled

While the eyes of the golf world are focused on the Ryder Cup this week, I thought that it would be fun to pull away from the drama of the current year’s events to take a look at some Ryder Cup history, and ask a question. What constitutes the “best” record in the Ryder Cup? Is it the most wins, or the most points scored over time? Or is it a perfect record, unblemished by losses, or even halves? And if it is the latter, who has achieved such a record?

Well, I can tell you that only one man has, and I’m willing to bet that most golfers, if asked who that man was, would guess and toss out names like Nicklaus, Palmer, or Woods from the American side; or Faldo, Ballesteros, or Montgomerie from the GBI/European side—but they’d be wrong.

That man is Ben Hogan.

Ben Hogan at the 1967 Ryder Cup awards ceremony
Credit: PGA of America via Getty Images    Copyright: PGA of America

Hogan is not a name that comes up much in conversations about the Ryder Cup these days, but it should. The American players who are most strongly associated with the biennial competition include Jack Nicklaus, Paul Azinger, and Phil Mickelson; on the GBI/European side you’ll hear about Seve Ballesteros, Nick Faldo, Colin Montgomerie, and Ian Poulter. Ben Hogan didn’t play in as many Ryder Cups as those big names, or score as many points, but he has one distinction that none of the rest of them can match: he was undefeated, both as a player and as a captain.

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

The 1947 Ryder Cup marked the return of the event to the world stage for the first time since 1937, and Ben Hogan’s first appearance in the event, as a playing captain—he remains the only man to have been chosen to captain the American squad without having played on a previous team. Foursomes and singles were the only matches that were contested in those days, and Hogan played in only one match, teaming up with good friend Jimmy Demaret in a foursomes match against Jimmy Adams and Max Faulkner, defeating the GBI duo 2-up.

Played at Portland Golf Club, in Portland, Oregon, the 1947 event was marked by controversy that came at playing captain Hogan from both sides. First, American player Vic Ghezzi, perhaps disgruntled by the serial disappointment of having been selected for three consecutive Ryder Cups that were cancelled by the war—19391, 1941, and 1943—complained that he had been discriminated against by Hogan when the captain eliminated from consideration for qualification the results of several invitational events in which Ghezzi had finished well.[i]

Second, Ghezzi also accused Hogan of pressuring tournaments to ease restrictions on the alteration of grooves on wedges, an infraction that Ghezzi had been accused of earlier that year, an accusation that was reported in the press. It is possible that these reports encouraged GBI captain Henry Cotton in alleging that the Americans were using clubs with illegal grooves. This accusation came to naught when Captain Hogan allowed the Americans’ clubs to be inspected, and all were found to be legal and conforming.

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

Hogan’s next appearance in the Ryder Cup came in 1949 as a non-playing captain—the youngest, to this day, in the history of the event. Just seven-and-a-half months after the February, 1949 head-on collision with a Greyhound bus that had come close to claiming his life, Hogan led a nine-man team consisting of four veterans; Sam Snead, Jimmy Demaret, Lloyd Mangrum, and Dutch Harrison, and five rookies; Skip Alexander, Bob Hamilton, Chick Harbert, Clayton Heafner, and Johnny Palmer, against a 10-man GBI squad of eight veterans and two rookies.

The event was again marked by some controversy, on two counts: First, Hogan reopened old wounds from the 1947 Ryder Cup when he leveled charges, on the night before play was to begin, that some of the British players were using irons with grooves that were deeper than were allowed by the rules. Unlike Henry Cotton’s accusation in 1947, the charges were found to have some merit: Jock Ballantyne, the head pro of the host club, Ganton Golf Club in Yorkshire, reportedly stayed up half the night grinding the faces of several sets of clubs to bring the grooves into conformance.

Second, the U.S. team brought along their own provisions, including fresh butter and eggs, half a dozen Virginia hams, thirty pounds of bacon, and some six hundred pounds of Texas sirloin steaks, to a United Kingdom that was still subject to wartime food rationing. The furor surrounding this culinary affront died down when Hogan offered to share the American bounty with the host team.

This was still in the era of foursomes and singles matches only, and while the GBI squad led 3-1 at the end of the Friday foursomes, the U.S. team rallied back in the Saturday singles, winning six of the eight matches to post an overall winning record of 7 and 5.

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

Hogan returned to Ryder Cup play in 1951 as a team member. Though thankfully unmarked by controversy, the 1951 event did score an oddity— play was split between Friday (foursomes) and Sunday (singles) so that participants and spectators (presumably) could attend a college football game on Saturday in nearby Chapel Hill, where home team North Carolina hosted the visiting Tennessee Volunteers.

The U.S. team went out to a 3–1 lead in the Friday foursome matches, Hogan and good friend Jimmy Demaret teaming up once again and defeating the GBI duo of Fred Day and Ken Bousfield, 5 & 4.

Despite their strong play on Friday (the three matches they won went 5 & 3, 5 & 4, 5 & 4), the American Ryder Cup squad stayed in Pinehurst and practiced on Saturday, while the visiting GBI squad attended the American football game (and likely wondered at the name, given that only one member of the team ever touches the ball with his foot.) The visiting team, Tennessee, won in a rout, 27–0, but any hopes of foreshadowing for the GBI Ryder Cup squad was crushed during Sunday’s singles matches.

The U.S. team dominated the Sunday singles, 6-1-1, adding 6½ points to their Friday total for a 9½–2½ trouncing of the GBI squad. Hogan, playing in his first, and only, Ryder Cup singles match, defeated Britain’s Charlie Ward 3 & 2. It was to be the last Ryder Cup point he ever scored.

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

Hogan didn’t return to the Ryder Cup until 1967, when he took the U.S. squad down the road to Champions Golf Club in Houston, Texas as a non-playing captain.

Not taking it any easier on his team than he ever had on himself, Hogan imposed a 10:30 pm. curfew and early practice sessions on his squad of five veterans and five rookies.

It was evident, however, that Hogan had confidence in his team. At the opening night dinner, after GBI squad captain Dai Rees, a loquacious Welshman, waxed lyrical (and overlong) about the virtues of each of his players in his introductory remarks, Hogan kept his speech short and sweet. After introducing each player by name only, and with his entire team standing, Hogan said, “Ladies and gentlemen, the U.S. Ryder Cup Team—the finest golfers in the world.” 

There was noticeable friction between Hogan and one of his players, though: Arnold Palmer. The two had always had a frosty relationship, and a couple of incidents during the 1967 Ryder Cup only deepened the permafrost.

In an interesting move that would form the basis of the one question I would most like to ask Mr Hogan, given the chance, he opted for his team to play the smaller (1.62-inch diameter) British ball, as was the option in those days.[ii] The decision to play the smaller ball led to a bit of internal controversy between Hogan and Palmer. Details of the exchange vary, but allegedly when Palmer, who had obviously forgotten to practice with the 1.62-inch ball, asked Hogan if he had brought any, Hogan snapped back, “Did you remember to bring your clubs?”[iii]

Of course, it probably hadn’t helped things that Palmer had shown up a couple of days late for practice rounds, and then took a few members of the GBI squad up for a ride in the Rockwell Jet Commander aircraft that he had bought the year before.[iv] After climbing to 8,000 feet and rolling the aircraft, Palmer circled dangerously low over the golf course on final approach before landing. Billy Casper was on the course at the time, and later recalled that when Palmer flew over in the jet, with his wheels down, he was so low that, “I could have hit a wedge over that plane.” Tournament host and Champions Club co-founder Jimmy Demaret quipped, “The only time I’ve ever seen a plane fly under the eaves of a clubhouse.”[v]

The stunt earned Palmer a letter of severe reprimand from the Federal Aviation Administration, and a rebuke from Hogan.

After Palmer and partner Gardner Dickinson won their Friday foursomes matches 2 & 1 over the Anglo/Irish duo of Peter Alliss and Christy O’Connor in the morning, and 5 & 4 over another Anglo/Irish pairing, Malcolm Gregson and Hugh Boyle in the afternoon, Palmer was sat out in the morning for the Saturday fourball (better-ball) matches, a 1963 addition to the Ryder Cup format. This is often seen as a slight against Palmer, who agreed in public with his captain’s decision, and later admitted in private that he was a bit tired.[vi] Julius Boros, who had 14 PGA Tour wins to his credit by this time, and two U.S. Open wins (1952, 1963) also sat out Saturday morning after playing morning and afternoon on Friday.

Saturday afternoon saw the two rested players, Palmer and Boros, paired up against Scotsman George Will and Irishman Hugh Boyle in a hard-fought match. The American pair were 4-down at the turn, and battled back to a 1-up win that was the closest U.S. victory of the afternoon.

The Sunday singles matches were dominated by Captain Hogan’s American players 5–3 in the morning and 5½ –2½ in the afternoon, for an overall score of USA–23 ½, GBI–8 ½.

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

Ben Hogan’s record of three Ryder Cup wins doesn’t sound too impressive compared to the points totals toted up by some modern-day players, but his opportunities to rack up points was limited by the war years, and by the fact that his Ryder Cup playing days came before the addition of a day of fourball matches between foursome and singles. In one category, though, he stands out above all others: he is the only man whose Ryder Cup record, both as a player and a captain, has that pair of zeroes after the win count: 3–0–0. 

Ben Hogan – undefeated.

---

[i] Dodson, James; Ben Hogan: An American Life, pg. 213

[ii] The Montreal Gazette; October 20, 1967 

[iii] Sampson, Curt; Hogan, pg. 229

[iv] https://www.arnoldpalmer.com/aviation

[v] Dodson, James; Ben Hogan: An American Life, pg. 475

[vi] Feherty, David & Frank, James A.; David Feherty’s Totally Subjective History of the Ryder Cup, pg. 146

Late-Sunday Cal-Stanford alumni matchup at Fortinet Championship goes Cal’s way as Max Homa wins

“I’d rather be lucky than good” was one of my late father’s favorite sayings, but what’s hard to beat is someone who’s both—and that sums up 8-year Tour pro Max Homa’s final round at the Fortinet Championship pretty well.

Opening the tournament with a 5-under 67 was a good start for the 2013 Cal grad, but following the 67 with an even-par 72 must have made for a tense Friday evening—he was not to know this, of course, but no one else who carded an even-par round on Friday finished better than T-22, and 18 of those who did, missed the cut.

Still, Homa’s five-under standing was good enough to make the cut with a shot or two to spare, and a Saturday pairing with fellow SoCal native and notable positive-thinker Phil Mickelson may have been just what the doctor ordered for him. After a so-so one-under opening nine in which he balanced two bogeys against three birdies, Homa and Mickelson had a chat and decided that they both needed to get something done on the back nine.

It worked. Mickelson ran off a string of five birdies after a bogey on the 12th, and Homa birdied six of the nine holes, including a string of three to close out the round, with no bogeys, for a back-nine 30. The “moving day” 65 put Homa in a five-way tie for 3rd, two strokes behind co-leaders Maverick McNealy and Jim Knous.

Homa and McNealy ran off identical 33s on the front nine on Sunday, and Homa slipped back by a stroke with an untimely bogey and the par-4 10th hole—but it was at the 12th, a relatively straightforward 393-yard par-four, that things began to get interesting.

Homa’s drive strayed right and ended up in a reasonable lie in the right rough, leaving him 94 yards to the back-center flag. Trusting in the advice of his caddy, Joe Greiner, Homa lofted a shot to the center of the green that took three hops and rolled on a curving left-to-right path right into the cup for an eagle—and all of a sudden he was one back of the leader McNealy. Skill? Yes, but even Homa admitted after the round that it was a lucky shot.

Stanford grad McNealy, whose game had cooled off after a second-round 64, opened his fourth-round back nine with a string of six pars, while Homa followed the pitch-in eagle on 12 with a birdie on 13 to tie the lead. For the next three holes nothing changed, as the two carded identical pars on holes 14 through 16—and then came the 17th hole.

Max Homa hit two pure shots, one from the tee and one from the fairway that landed 18 feet above the hole, and rolled in a tricky right-to-left downhill slider to make birdie, and take over the lead, by a stroke, from McNealy.

McNealy, on the other hand, fared rather less well on the 17th hole than his namesake automobile—a nondescript compact marketed by Ford in the 1970s—ever had in the marketplace.

Coming over the top with probably the only bad swing he had made all day, McNealy’s tee shot at the 361-yard par-four hit a tree on the right and dropped well short, leaving him farther from the hole—189 yards—than he was from the tee. His second flew the green, and his chip from the trampled-down rough behind the putting surface raced by the hole on the downslope and ran off the front of the green. Another chip, from the front apron, left him an 11-foot bogey putt down the hill, which narrowly missed, followed by a two-footer for double-bogey that finally dropped.

And just like that, Max Homa was the tournament leader by three strokes.

A sloppy but routine par at the 18th by Homa put McNealy in the unenviable position of having to hole out from the fairway to tie the round and force a playoff. That fairytale scenario didn’t pan out, but the young man who literally grew up on Pebble Beach Golf Links before his family moved to Hillsborough, on the San Francisco Peninsula, when he was a teen, and who was more interested in hockey than golf before walking on to the Stanford Men’s Golf team, showed his fortitude on the final hole. With a calm that showed that he had put the relative ugliness of the previous hole behind him, he striped a center-cut drive down the final fairway, followed by a beauty of a shot to the back of the green at the par-five 18th, rolling in a 32-foot eagle putt to cement a solo second-place finish.

It was an exciting final-round tussle between a SoCal kid who came north to play college golf for public university Cal-Berkeley, and a NorCal native who made his mark on the team for the exclusive private university across the bay. This was Homa’s third win, and second in his home state, and while McNealy is still looking for his first PGA Tour victory, this tournament, and his narrow miss to finish second at last year’s AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, show that his fans are not likely to have to wait long before he hoists a trophy on the PGA Tour.

Day One is in the books at the 2021 Fortinet Championship

Given the variety of weather and playing conditions stress that has plagued the PGA Tour’s Napa Valley stop in recent years—high winds, fires, smoke-filled skies—a day that begins under a cool, grey overcast and finished under clear, sunny skies, with only light, fitful breezes, has to be considered a total win. Such was Day One of the 2021 Fortinet Championship at the Silverado Resort and Spa.

Tournament spokesman Phil Mickelson had a fair first round, opening with a 2-under 70, slotting him in at T-34 at the close of play; it was a good fit with his opening round record here at Silverado from 2016 through 2020: 69–69–65–75–71. The two other most notable names in the field, and the two top-ranked players at Silverado this week, World #1 Jon Rahm, and 2021 Masters champ and #20-ranked Hideki Matsuyama, had mixed results, due mostly to moderate to poor performances on the greens. Matsuyama closed out the day with a 3-under 69, T-23; while Rahm carded an even-par 72 to sit T-104 at the end of the day.

Sitting atop the leaderboard at the end of the first round was Kansas native and ASU grad Chez Reavie, who carded a 7-under 65 on the strength of Top 10 rankings in both Strokes-Gained-Approach and Strokes-Gained Putting. Tied for second behind Reavie are American Cameron Tringale and Canadian Adam Hadwin, both a stroke back at 6-under 66.

Among NorCal-adjacent players, SoCal native and former Cal Men’s Golf player Max Homa got his tournament off to a strong start with a 5-under 67, T-4. This is by far his best first-round performance on Silverado’s North Course, where he has opened with rounds of 72, 80 (ouch!), 72, and 70 in his past recent appearances.

Three Stanford Men’s Golf alumni, Patrick Rodgers, Maverick McNealy, and Joseph Bramlett, are next in the pack of NorCal-connected players, at 4-under, 3-under, and 3-under, respectively.

Among the former winners of this event that are in the field this year, Emiliano Grillo (2015), Brendan Steele (2016, 2017), and Kevin Tway (2018) all came in at 2-under 70, while Cameron Champ (2019) struggled to a 1-over 73.