Connect with us
Advertisement

Opinion & Analysis

Do Taller Golfers Have An Advantage?

Published

on

You would assume that height would be an advantage in golf. After all, taller golfers have the potential to hit the ball farther based simply on their limb length, mass, and overall body strength. Doesn’t a taller golfer’s ability to drive the ball as much as 30 yards or 50 yards past his shorter opponent give him a head start that can’t be overcome?

Well, there’s that well-known fable concerning the tortoise and the hare, and we all know how that turned out. A fast start is no guarantee of a fast finish. Maybe that’s the point that Harvey Penick was attempting to make in his own way when he said, “The woods are full of big hitters.” I think you would agree that there’s is no point in hitting the ball a long way off the tee if doesn’t end up in the fairway consistently.

Charlie Danielson 

After working with a number of tall players over the years, I had come to the conclusion that height was a not an advantage. In fact, with only a few exceptions, it seemed to be a distinct disadvantage.

In considering this subject, I thought of my former student Charlie Danielson, who was 6-feet 5-inches tall. I‘d worked with Charlie through his high school years up until the week that he left to play for Coach Mike Small at the University of Illinois, where he helped his team capture the NCAA Championship. In working with Charlie, I found that the plane of his swing could vary as much as a foot over the course of a single week. In this regard, he was not the exception to the rule, but more the norm when it came to be working with tall players.

The advantage that Charlie had was that he was fully capable of hitting good shots even when the plane of swing was less than ideal. He was like a great hitter in baseball; he would just adjust to the height of the pitch and make it work.

The Taller Player 

The logical assumption, as mentioned earlier, would be that a taller player would naturally hit the ball farther than a shorter player. And that distance would then allow the taller player to outperform the smaller player every time. That contention would certainly seem to be evidenced by looking at today’s modern wonder boys, Dustin Johnson at 6-feet 4-inches and Jordan Spieth at 6-feet 1-inch. Between them, they’ve have won a total of nine events and a total of $17 million on the PGA Tour in an eight-month period.

Table_2_Rod_Height

That said, I’ve found over the years that there are six areas where tall players typically struggle. These six areas constitute what I refer to as “The Taller Player Syndrome,” and these problems ultimately affect a player’s ability to score.

The Taller Player Syndrome 

No. 1: The Setup

The first disadvantage is related to setting up to the ball. How does it make sense that a player who is 6-feet 5-inches tall would use the same length irons as another player who is 5-feet 7-inches tall? And yet, realistically, the most an iron can extended is about an inch before it becomes unmanageable. In this case, there is a difference of 10 inches in height between these two players.

The taller player must then account for this difference in the setup, which becomes exceedingly awkward — especially with the shorter irons. This is in contrast to the shorter player, who only needs to bend slightly forward from the hips, place the sole of his club on the ground, and then make a swing.

No. 2: Lower Body Instability

The distance from the taller player’s feet to his knees, and the distance from his knees to his hips, is considerably greater than the shorter player. This lends itself to general instability in the lower body, especially where the length of the legs is disproportionate to the torso, ensuring poor balance throughout the swing.

No. 3: Excessive Knee-Drive

There is a universal tendency for taller players to develop excessive knee-drive on their downswing, causing them to finish with their backs in an arched position as if they were doing the side-ways limbo. This places excessive pressure on the lumbar region of the back.

No. 4: Lower Back Issues

In many cases, I’ve found that taller golfers have legs that are not equal in length, which creates setup and balance issues. There are three possible causes for the apparent disparity in leg length:

  1. The first possible cause can be genetic, meaning that the length of the leg bones on either side of the body are unequal, which is actually quite rare.
  2. The second possible cause, which is more common, occurs when the pelvis has been torqued in one direction or another. In a case where the pelvis has been twisted to the left, the right leg becomes functionally longer while the left becomes shorter. The reverse is true when the pelvis is twisted in the opposite direction.
  3. A third possible cause is when the stronger and less flexible muscles on one side of the body take over. This has the effect of pulling the lower spine out of alignment and in the process, pinching delicate nerves. which is the basis of pain. Those players with this condition will universally complain of periodic or chronic back pain, which often grows worse with age.

No. 5: Fluctuating Spine Angle

The arc of the swing revolves around the spine, which is inclined forward at address. This angle must be retained throughout the swing until the ball is struck, which makes for consistent shot-making. The required angle at address is considerably more acute for a taller player than a shorter player, making it more difficult to retain the angle through impact.

No. 6: Variable Backswing Plane

The most significant problem for the taller player, as mentioned earlier, is the variety of planes in which the club can be swung. The plane can vary from horizontal to vertical and everywhere else in between.

In contrast, a shorter player has, for the most part, only one swing plane. And invariably it’s the correct one, because it comes more naturally to them than the taller player. The inability to swing the club on the same plane on a consistent basis ultimately leads to variations in performance.

PGA Tour Money List 

Table_1_Rod_Height

I decided to look at the top-15 players on this year’s PGA Tour Money List to determine if there was a connection between the height of the players and how well they performed in terms of dollars earned between January 1 and August 31, 2017, as outlined above.

The study would hardly meet scientific guidelines, based on (1) limited sampling, (2) short time period, (3) lack of a control group.

The Study

The study was not designed to prove or disprove any one theory. I simply wanted to determine in rather short order if there was a plausible correlation between a player’s height and the number of dollars they earned on the PGA Tour.

The study would seem to suggest that in terms of dollars earned, height is neither an advantage or a disadvantage. That said, a broader study conducted in a purely scientific manner “might” reveal additional insight on the subject.

  • The numbers indicate that taller players on the PGA Tour do not hold an advantage over shorter players.
  • In the reverse, shorter players on the PGA Tour may hold a slight advantage over taller players based on their durability, making them less prone to injury.
  • The amount of money earned on an average by those players under 6-feet tall is virtually same as the amount of money earned by those players over 6-feet tall.
  • The numbers suggest that the composite height of “the perfect golfer” has increased from previous years to between 5-feet 11-inches and 6-feet tall.
  • The numbers are skewed in favor of taller players by Dustin Johnson and Matt Kuchar, who are both 6-feet 4-inches tall. Were these two players NOT among the top-15 money winners, the average height of the entire group would dip toward the shorter side.

Some additional findings included:

  • The shortest player in the group is Brian Harman at 5-feet 7-inches.
  • There are a six players who are below 6-feet, while there are nine players who are 6-feet or taller.
  • The average amount of money won by the six players under 6-feet was $5,714,844, while the average amount of money won by the nine players over 6-feet was $5,323,572.

In many other sports, height is an advantage and in some cases a requirement. In this regard, golf is unique. The height of the player is for the most part irrelevant when it comes to earning, and by extension, playing the game well.

Would these same findings apply to amateur golfers across the board, including those with handicaps from scratch to 30? That grouping would have to be studied on an independent basis to reach a valid conclusion, though a plausible assumption is that it would be similar.

In addition, this limited study indicates that height of “the perfect golfer” would seem to be increasing. This may well be due to the fact that the sport is attracting bigger and better athletes, who might have chosen to play another sport in prior generations, but were attracted by the fame and fortune that golf now offers its stars.

Your Reaction?
  • 130
  • LEGIT17
  • WOW6
  • LOL3
  • IDHT4
  • FLOP9
  • OB4
  • SHANK62

As a teacher, Rod Lidenberg reached the pinnacle of his career when he was named to GOLF Magazine's "Top 100" Teachers in America. The PGA Master Professional and three-time Minnesota PGA "Teacher of the Year" has over his forty-five year career, worked with a variety of players from beginners to tour professionals. He especially enjoys training elite junior players, many who have gone on to earn scholarships at top colleges around the country, in addition to winning several national amateur championships. Lidenberg maintains an active schedule teaching at Bluff Creek Golf Course Chanhassen, Minnesota, in the summer and The Golf Zone, Chaska, Minnesota, in the winter months. As a player, he competed in two USGA Public Links Championships; the first in Dallas, Texas, and the second in Phoenix, Arizona, where he finished among the top 40. He also entertained thousands of fans playing in a series of three exhibition matches beginning in 1972, at his home course, Edgewood G.C. in Fargo, North Dakota, where he played consecutive years with Doug Sanders, Lee Trevino and Laura Baugh. As an author, he has a number of books in various stages of development, the first of which will be published this fall entitled "I Knew Patty Berg." In Fall 2017, he will be launching a new Phoenix-based instruction business that will feature first-time-ever TREATMENT OF THE YIPS.

32 Comments

32 Comments

  1. Duhg

    Oct 16, 2017 at 10:26 am

    Being taller can be an advantage if you are a very good athlete. If you are a weekend warrior hack, then it probably works against you.

  2. 8thehardway

    Oct 14, 2017 at 7:24 am

    This article only makes sense if the author is 6’5″ and wants to convince his 5’8″ buddies to take fewer strokes.

  3. Jack Nash

    Oct 13, 2017 at 8:22 pm

    Taller golfers? Like The Golden Bear?

  4. Tony Hadley

    Oct 13, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Facts don’t care about your feelings Maruman. Try reading “The Bell Curve.” It will help you out.

  5. Marcello

    Oct 13, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    At 6.6″, this sure makes sense to me.
    Does anyone have any references in FL for golf instructors who specifically teach tall golfers?

  6. Peter in Parker

    Oct 13, 2017 at 10:53 am

    I have noticed that heavier set folks can really drive the ball far. So if you are not tall…..eat eat eat !! Put on those carbs……..

  7. Cheesehead42

    Oct 13, 2017 at 10:25 am

    I am 6’9″ so I can probably offer a little bit of first-hand experience.

    1. Longer levers may allow for more club head speed but in my experience, the longer the club is moving, the more time there is for something to get off track. Imagine someone who is 5’10” swinging a 50″ driver versus myself swinging a 45″ driver. Yes, if everything is timed correctly you can generate some power/speed but you need a swing that is really dialed in to take full advantage of it.

    2. It is a pain in the a$$ to get fitted. Getting fitted sounds great as long as what they have in the cart fits you. After a lot of trial and error, I finally got into a set that truly fits me….. +2″ length and +6’5* upright on irons and wedges. There is not a fitting cart in the world with those options.

    3. We (tall people) bend over for everything (reaching down to open a door, ducking to walk through a door, bending down to hug your wife, etc) so we want to stand upright as much as possible. This includes with our swing. Coming out of the swing early has been something that I gave up trying to fix and decided to just adapt my swing to it. I play to a 9 now and feel that will go down but it has only gotten better after I decided to adapt a swing to my body rather than trying to emulate what YouTube tells me.

  8. Ardbeggar

    Oct 13, 2017 at 8:48 am

    I’m convinced! I’m going to start practising getting taller.

  9. larry

    Oct 13, 2017 at 8:26 am

    terrible read

  10. MB

    Oct 13, 2017 at 2:45 am

    This needs a good 25-year study and not just some short term earnings based off the Fedex Cup race.

    • Grizz

      Oct 13, 2017 at 2:57 pm

      I agree, a much longer study would be better. Nicklaus was what? 5’11” and could drive the ball with old equipment over 300 yards. His short game lacked though, but I think that is because he hit more greens and didn’t need the short game as much and didn’t practice like he should.

      I also think the study needs to include arm length and leg power and core strength. I’m 6 ft. But have the arms of the average length of someone 6’3-6’4. With that fulcrum/leverage and very strong and quick core, I’m long off the tee and fairly accurate. But my shorter mid-range 30-80 yards is the worst part of my game. It’s not the lack of practice but I think the long arms have trouble with getting into that rhythm.

  11. Mark

    Oct 12, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    May I suggest you search for an excellent discussion in the Clubmaking forum on fitting clubs for tall golfers. If you do bother to read this you will realise that your statement ” And yet, realistically, the most an iron can extended is about an inch before it becomes unmanageable.” reveals you to be someone who has limited club fitting experience.

  12. Casey Svejkovsky

    Oct 12, 2017 at 4:38 pm

    If you look at Phil Mickelson who’s 6’3″, he hits it all over the place and still finds a way to win tournaments. It all comes down to who has the best short game, at the end of the day, not who can hit it the straightest. Coaches now can find away around a disadvantage

  13. Bishop

    Oct 12, 2017 at 4:19 pm

    I feel height provides no advantage to a player. As a 5’6″ hack, I’m still able to consistently out-drive most of my playing partners, and all of them are taller than me.

    A couple of big-hitters who are short: Ben Hogan (who was 5’7″ and 135 pounds) and Rory (who’s also 5’7″).

    • M. Vegas

      Oct 12, 2017 at 4:52 pm

      5’6” is probably rounded up a lil…
      Not much luck with the cart girls, I’d also bet

      • Peeny

        Oct 13, 2017 at 2:46 am

        Who cares if you are taller or shorter!? This game is a game of adversity (for everyone).
        This article and these comments just seem to bash based on a physical trait that people have no control over, and has the same framework as racism. C’mon guys – just go out there and have some fun. Don’t worry about what everyone else is doing.

    • Cornwall1888

      Oct 13, 2017 at 11:26 am

      Mcilroy is about 5’9″

      • Bishop

        Oct 13, 2017 at 3:05 pm

        Thanks for the correction, Cornwall. I had understood that he was shorter, but after researching, you’re definitely right.

  14. Kurt Guldi

    Oct 12, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    Not a bad article. Though I feel like it is pretty generic. I’m a taller player at 6’3″. However, my arms and legs are short for my height-(72″ arm span, 30″ inseam”). So for example, the section referring to club length….. someone who is 10″ taller will also generally have longer arms which would offset the height difference somewhat. Also, someone like me who is taller but has shorter legs, doesn’t have the same issues with lower body instability as someone who has the typical leg length.

    • Mat

      Oct 12, 2017 at 3:54 pm

      Agreed. Let’s do the same calculation by Wingspan:Height ratio.

    • 2putttom

      Oct 12, 2017 at 8:47 pm

      Kurt your nick name shall be T Rex :~)

  15. Sour Grapes

    Oct 12, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    It is an advantage when it comes to length only IMO. Being taller or shorter will not help one make better contact with the ball, impart more or less feel, or result in more putts being sunk. However, If you take two golfers of similar abilities, the taller golfer will hit longer drives and will be 1-2 clubs longer throughout the bag, which does correlate to a distinct advantage to me.

    You do not see short guys like Brian Harmon winning on the longer PGA Tour courses that stretch to 7500 plus yards.

  16. Matt

    Oct 12, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Gotta love golf. Still to this day the most “egalitarian” sport physically. Which is why golfers are the most talented athletes on Earth. We have basically the entire world population to compete against. Those other sports have about 3% of the population to contend with. The reason is so much force in a golf shot comes from the player’s athletic ability to deliver a large spring into the back of the ball. If coordinated enough a relatively “weak” athlete like Justin Thomas (I am comparing him to what is required to even be on the gridiron or baseball diamond), can leverage a golf club and hit the ball further than those much larger. Its athleticism to use a golf club properly, but the club is a huge equalizer. A baseball bat does not flex much, its basically brute force with all the energy coming purely from the body. Football and basketball have obvious physical limitations, with basketball so ridiculous is almost funny – literally freaks of nature. How many 6’9″ people do you see, you could literally go weeks in a big city and not spot one, not to mention 7′ or something).

  17. Tommy

    Oct 12, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    I’ve said all this for years. With their short irons, taller players can have trouble even reaching the ball properly. Look at Keegan Bradley, how he’s all bent over and contorted to reach it properly. It’s very tough to fit a taller person with club length…almost impossible for someone with longer legs.

    • C

      Oct 12, 2017 at 2:45 pm

      Pretty sure Keegan is properly fit into his clubs. That’s just his stance and swing.

    • Scott

      Oct 13, 2017 at 10:05 am

      I will say the difficultly in fitting taller amateur players is the day to day variation in the address position which causes a number of the items discussed in the article. I am about 6′ 1″ or so with a very long wing span. I have difficultly maintaining what I feel is a proper address on a day to day basis. Just something that needs to be worked through

  18. Greg V

    Oct 12, 2017 at 11:49 am

    In the days of persimmon, it was helpful to be “closer to your work.” Look at players such as Tom Watson, Lanny Wadkins, Ben Crenshaw. Even Jack Nicklaus was only 5′ 10″. Now that 460 cc drivers are the norm, and good lightweight graphite shafts make longer clubs more feasible, golfers up to 6’2″ or 6’3″ are still plenty close to their work.

    • Bruce Ferguson

      Oct 12, 2017 at 1:25 pm

      I’m 6’3″. As the the argument of longer limbs giving an advantage, I can’t say. I can say that, in my experience, a big reason I don’t play blade-sized irons is that they look so tiny from my height. If I were 5’9″ or shorter, I might be more confident playing a compact iron head. I might also fit better in some of those sports cars I fancy . . .

  19. Ryan

    Oct 12, 2017 at 11:45 am

    Average height of an American male is 5’9”. Only Brian Harmon is shorter. Everyone else is average or above… feels like a correlation to me.

    • C

      Oct 12, 2017 at 1:29 pm

      Came here to say this.

    • Dan

      Oct 13, 2017 at 1:20 pm

      I was going to pint this exact thing out. The average American male is 5’9″ now, and back when I was a kid it was 5’7″, that was when Jack playing so even then he was 3″ above the norm. I think there is no doubt height is an advantage, it’s hard to ignore physics and those extra lever lengths help. Two people of exactly the same intrinsic skill, will perform differently because of the physics involved if they are different in height, or other dimension. Comparing the top golfers with average height shows that most are above average, and if you look at women’s golf this evidence becomes even more profound.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion & Analysis

What is “feel” in putting… and how do you get it?

Published

on

You’re playing a course for the first time, so you arrive an hour early to warm-up. You make your way toward the practice green and you see a sign at the first tee that reads, “GREEN SPEED TODAY 11.”  That brings up two issues:

  1. How did they arrive at that number?
  2. How is that information valuable to me?

How did they arrive at that number?

They used what’s known as a stimpmeter — a device that’s used to measure the speed of a green. With a stimpmeter, the green’s surface is tested by rolling a ball down the 30-inch ramp that is tilted downward at a 20-degree angle. The number of feet the ball rolls after leaving the ramp is an indication of the green’s speed. The green-speed test is conducted on a flat surface. A total of three balls are rolled in three different directions. The three balls must then finish within eight inches of each other for the test to be valid.

For example, if the ball is rolled down the ramp and were to stop at 8 feet, the green would be running at an “8.” Were the ball to roll down the ramp and stop at 12 feet, the green would be running at a “12.”

Stimpmeter history

The stimpmeter was invented by Edward S. Stimpson, Sr., a Massachusetts State Amateur Champion and former Harvard Golf Team Captain. After attending the 1935 U.S. Open at Oakmont, he saw the need for a universal testing device after watching Gene Sarazen, who was at the top of his game, putt a ball off the green. He was of the opinion that the greens were unreasonably fast, but he had no way to prove it — thus the motivation for creating the invention.

The device is now used by superintendents to make sure all of their greens are rolling close to the same speed. This ensures that golfers are not guessing from one putt to another if a green is fast or slow based on the way it is maintained. The device is also used by tournament officials who want to make sure that green speed is not too severe.

Do Stimp readings matter for my game?

Not very much. That piece of abstract knowledge is of little value until you can translate it into your own personal feel for the speed of the putt. There is a method that will allow you to turn green speed into a legitimate feel, however, and you don’t even need a stimpmeter or a stimp reading to do it. I call it “Setting Your Own Stimpmeter.”

Before we get to how to do it, the first step is to determine if the putting green is the same speed as the greens on the course. The best source of information in this regard are the professionals working in the golf shop. They will be happy to share this information with you. You only need to ask. Assuming that the speed of the putting green is close to the speed of the greens on the course, you are ready to begin setting your own stimpmeter. This is done by inputting data into your neuromuscular system by rolling putts and visually observing the outcome.

Contrary to what most golfers believe, a golfer’s feel for distance is based in the eyes — not in the hands, which only records tactile information. It’s just like basketball. On the court, you look at the distance to the hoop and respond accordingly. While you would feel the ball in your hands, it doesn’t play a role in determining the proper distance to the hoop. Based on what you saw with your eyes, you would access the data that had been previously inputted through shooting practice.

Setting your own Stimpmeter

  1. Start by finding a location on the putting green that is flat and roughly 15 feet away from the fringe.
  2. Using five balls, start rolling putts one at a time toward the fringe. The objective is to roll them just hard enough for them to finish against the edge.
  3. You may be short of the fringe or long, but it is important that you do not judge the outcome— just observe, because the feel for distance is visually based.
  4. You should not try and judge the feel of the putt with your hands or any other part of your body. You can only process information in one sensory system at a time — that should be the eyes.
  5. You should continue to roll balls until you’ve reach the point that most of them are consistently finishing against the fringe. Once you can do that, you have successfully set you stimpmeter.

The key to the entire process is allowing yourself to make a subconscious connection between what your eyes have observed and the associated outcome. You must then trust what you have learned at a sub-conscious level. A conscious attempt to produce a given outcome will short-circuit the system. When it comes to judging speed, you must be prepared to surrender your conscious mind to your sub-conscious mind, which is infinitely wiser and more capable of calculating speed. Want proof? Work through the steps I’ve outlined below. .

  1. After having loaded the data as described in the exercise above, pace off a 25-foot putt.
  2. Using the same five balls, putt to the hole as you would normally using your conscious mind to control the outcome.
  3. Mark the location of the five balls with a tee pushing them down until they are level with the surface of the green.
  4. Allow your eyes to work slowly from the ball to the hole while clearing your conscious mind of any thought.
  5. Using the same five balls, putt to the hole allowing your subconscious mind to control the outcome.
  6. Compare the proximity of the five putts that you just hit to those marked with a tee. What do you observe?

Did you have trouble clearing your mind of any conscious thought? Assuming that your conscious mind intruded at any point, the outcome would be negatively affected. You should then repeat the exercise but this time, emptying your mind of any thought. You will have mastered the technique when you are able to quiet your conscious mind and allow your subconscious to take over.

This technique will improve your proximity to the hole on longer putts. And you know what that means? Fewer three-putts!

Editor’s Note: Rod Lindenberg has authored a book entitled “The Three-Putt Solution”  that is now available through Amazon. 

Your Reaction?
  • 11
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

Podcasts

TG2: What is this new Callaway iron? A deep investigation…

Published

on

Photos of a new Callaway iron popped up in the GolfWRX Forums, and equipment expert Brian Knudson and Editor Andrew Tursky discuss what exactly the new iron could be; new Apex pros, new Legacy irons, or maybe even a new X Forged? Also, the guys discuss Phil’s U.S. Open antics and apology, DJ’s driver shaft change, new Srixon drivers and utility irons, and a new Raw iron offering from Wilson. Enjoy the golf equipment packed show!

Check out the full podcast on SoundCloud below, or click here to listen on iTunes!

Your Reaction?
  • 5
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK5

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

Ted Bishop on the U.S. Open setup, Phil Mickelson’s antics, his infamous Tweet and more (full interview, transcribed)

Published

on

Ted Bishop has seen highs and he has seen lows. As the 38th President of the PGA of America, he was the one of the leaders of the game and the industry of golf. He was at the pinnacle of the game, but one ill-advised tweet brought that crashing down. After calling Ian Poulter a “lil’ girl” on social media, Bishop was impeached from his office and stripped of all of his titles and honors. But he retained his dignity and his love for the game of golf. In this exclusive interview, Bishop opens up about his feelings on the PGA of America, the USGA, this year’s U.S. Open and the double standard that seems to exist in the upper echelons of the game

Read the full transcription below, or click here to listen on SoundCloud, or click here to listen on iTunes!

Michael Williams: So, you’re out in Indiana. What are you doing these days?

Ted Bishop: You know, I’m the General Manager of the Legends Golf Club, which is a 45-hole facility about 25 minutes out from downtown Indianapolis. And it’s a golf course that I’ve built. And that’s pretty much what I do seven days a week and loving every minute of it. It was great when the PGA thing was over with to really dive back into my operation. And the day to day aspect of public golf… I’ve never gotten tired of it in my 47 years of working on a golf course.

Michael Williams: So let’s get to it with the U.S. Open. You saw it just like I did. Great winner, Brooks Koepka. I think you had a lot of great players fighting for the championship as we came down to the wire, which is exactly what you want to see. And you have a repeat champion for the first time since Curtis Strange. Talk to me about how you felt about the players and the level of play and then we’ll switch to how you felt about the golf course and it’s set up.

Ted Bishop: Well I thought Koepka played great and he putted the ball so well on that back nine Michael. And I thought Paul Azinger had one of the classic quotes late in the round yesterday, where he said, “You can’t ride ball striking to the winner’s circle.” And that was certainly the case with Koepka. When you look at the biggest hole that he played, it was probably the bogey he had on number 11.

Michael Williams: Absolutely.

Ted Bishop: And a couple of par saves after that. So for him to have been injured and to have been out as long as he has been here in 2018, this is a great, great victory for him. We knew that DJ was going to be there. I mean, I think he’s clearly earned his right to be the number one player in the world. And he’s playing better, week in, week out than anybody else does. Obviously with the setup, there was a lot of controversy as to how good golf was and how entertaining the open was. But at least when I’m here at a public golf course, they kind of enjoy watching the greatest players in the world be challenged. And that was the case at certain times last week.

Michael Williams: They say that Shinnecock is a second shot golf course but it’s not really a second shot golf course, it’s a third shot golf course because you’re going to hit some shots that hit that green and you’re going to hit a lot that don’t. So, it’s all about your ability to persevere and be creative on the greens and around them, making sure that that three goes from four to five and not to six, seven or eight.

But the controversy really started on Saturday. In your opinion, did they lose the course?

Ted Bishop: You know Michael, I thought the most telling interview that I saw the entire weekend on the course set up was the one that FOX did yesterday with Patrick Reed when his round was finished. And they asked him about the Saturday setup and he said, “You know, I really didn’t have a problem with it.” He said, “There were two pins on 13 and 15 that were maybe two yards out of place and it made a completely different situation on the putting greens.” But he said, “Other than that, I didn’t have any issues with it.” And that’s his personality. He’s the guy that rolls with the flow and doesn’t make any excuses. Now obviously, there were a lot of players that were very critical. I was just reading an article before this phone call. Some quotes from Steve Stricker, for example. And Strick’s usually a guy that doesn’t say anything bad about anything and he was very critical of about the set up. But I think the biggest controversy would be the fact that the players in the morning on Saturday were probably a different golf course than the players in the afternoon were. And that’s just sometimes in golf, the way that it goes.

But I for one, like I said before, I like to see these guys challenged and the US Open always kind of borders somewhat on the unfair side. I remember very vividly the 1974 US Open at Winged Foot and watching Hale Irwin slugging out there. I think he was … Correct me if I’m wrong or if you know, maybe he was seven over par at Winged Foot. So it’s just … That’s just what the US Open is. And it’s different than the other majors. And I personally found it entertaining.

Michael Williams: I did too. If you had been in charge of that championship, would you have done anything different throughout the four days? In terms of course set up.

Ted Bishop: Well, you know that’s a difficult question. My youngest daughter is a PGA member and she’s at St Andrews Golf Club, which is not far from Shinnecock. It’s the oldest club in the United States. And I was talking to her Saturday night, just about the weather that they had to experience in that part of the country and she was saying to me that their greens at St Andrews were as hard and fast as she can ever remember them in the 15 years that she’s been there. So hard that you could actually … You could hear the ball land on the green from the fairway. And so obviously, Shinnecock was harder and faster than some place like that would’ve been in that area.

Michael Williams: Right.

Ted Bishop: And you know, I guess maybe you would have watered … In retrospect, you might have watered more on Friday night if you would have known that conditions were going to get that out of hand. You know, that part of this is so complicated and sophisticated. I say complicated, really in a lot of ways it’s easier Michael, because you got these moisture meters. And you can go out and you can actually test your soils at any point during the morning hours. You can anticipate what your evaporation rate’s going to be based on the wind. And you can do some things differently.

I think Mike Davis said he kind of got off guard on Saturday and I’m sure that if he had some things to do over again, he would’ve done it. But then he made the corrections, I felt like on Sunday. And pins were far more reasonable, the golf course was softer and there were no issues.

Michael Williams: Yeah and you got Tommy Fleetwood shooting a 63. Does that mean there’s an overcorrection?

Ted Bishop: Oh I don’t know about that. I just think the weather got out of hand. And that’s the one element that you can’t ever control. And I know Mike has taken a lot of criticism and he continues to take it. I did an interview with a radio station in Charlotte on Saturday, and they were asking me the difference between Kerry Haigh, who sets up the PGA Championships and Mike Davis who obviously does the USGA. And Kerry is not a risk taker; you can almost go to the bank every year no matter where the PGA’s played, that the winner score is going to be 8 to 12 under par. His philosophy is he wants to see good shots rewarded and there’s a little bit of risk and reward, but he never gets over the top. Mike on the other hand, I would call a risk taker. And that starts really with some of the sites that he selects. And you can point to Chambers Bay and Erin Hills as two that would be that case. Certainly, he made it that way with Shinnecock. But you know, they are different personalities and their philosophies are different. And I’m going to stand up for Mike Davis and I’m going to say that one’s not necessarily right and one’s not necessarily wrong.

I always felt part of golf was being able to adapt to the conditions, no matter what they are. And Tom Watson had a great quote that he said that golf was not meant to be a fair game. And that’s just kind of the way it is… I think that’s always interesting Michael, about the U.S. Open, the tour players are so conditioned to play with the same type of playing conditions week in and week out.

Michael Williams: Yep.

Ted Bishop: I mean, the PGA Championship is not much different than a tour event. Obviously, the Open Championship is going to be different. The U.S. Open is going to be different. The rest of them … Even the Masters, is a, what I would call a PGA Tour set up. So these guys are so conditioned to play the same way week in and week out, when they get a curve ball thrown their way sometimes they don’t react well.

Michael Williams: You’ve already addressed the fact that what happens at the U.S. Open never happens at the PGA Championship. Who is the constituency of Mike Davis? Who is he trying to please? If so many people are displeased, why isn’t he held accountable? Why doesn’t somebody else get a crack at doing that?

Ted Bishop: Well, I think his constituency would be the USGA Executive Committee, possibly.

Michael Williams: So as long as they’re pleased, he’s good to go?

Ted Bishop: Yeah.

Michael Williams: Okay.

Ted Bishop: Exactly. And, they own that championship. I know it’s the United States Open, but you and I don’t own it. The USGA does. So, it’s really their prerogative, and Mike’s the guy that they’ve entrusted that core setup year in and year out to, so it’s their baby to do with what they want to.

Michael Williams: Again, I’m with you. I love what Mike Davis does. I love the fact that you get one tournament a year that’s half Masters and half NASCAR. You’ve got speed and performance, and you’ve also got crashes in Turn 2.

Besides the winner and the course, the story was, Phil Mickelson. I’m going to ask you this as a three-parter. What do you think of what he did, what do you think of his explanation for why he did it, and if it was your sole decision to make, would he have been disqualified?

Ted Bishop: Well, I think that had Phil kept his mouth shut after the round and really not exposed what had happened he would have been OK. Under rule 14-5, I mean, he clearly struck a ball in motion, so that’s a two shot penalty.

Michael Williams: Right. That’s physics, so you can’t argue with physics. He hit a ball that’s moving. Done.

Ted Bishop: Yeah. Can’t argue with that. Honestly, the great thing about the rules of golf, you always have the opportunity to use the rules to your advantage. That’s not cheating. That’s just knowing the rules book and using them to your advantage.

Michael Williams: Right.

Ted Bishop: At that point, when he did that, I would say that he succeeded in using the rules to his advantage. When he went to the media scrum afterwards, and basically admitted what his intent was, now all of the sudden, that really kind of falls under a different rule, Rule 1-2, which is another situation that could have very easily have resulted in a disqualification.

Michael Williams: Now, what is it he said specifically that takes it from a 14-5 consideration to 1-2?

Ted Bishop: Well, he indicated what his intentions were, to stop the ball before it went off the putting green and rolled down into a place that he very conceivably might not have had a shot. It was his intent, if he wouldn’t have divulged what his intent was, if he would have just said, “Hey, I clearly struck a ball in motion. I did what I did, and that was it”, and not taken it any further than that, then it would have been pretty clear-cut that it was a two shot penalty. But when he expressed his intent to breach the rules, then that’s where the disqualification would have come into play.

I talked with a guy that’s on the PGA of America Rules Committee, and watched a couple of people talk about it this morning in preparation for this story, and I think that’s about as clear and concise as you can make it. The question then goes to the USGA, well, then why did you not go ahead and disqualify him because he clearly indicated what his intentions were? That stuff happens. I remember being at the Masters when Roy McIlroy took that practice swing (2009). I was on the Rules Committee in the bunker that year, and there was a lot of talk that he should be disqualified. I know Kerry Haigh privately said, hey, if this would have been the PGA Championship we would have DQ’d him, but they elected not to at Augusta, and the USGA elected not to DQ Phil. Again, that’s what the committee does. They make those types of decisions, and the rest of us debate them.

Michael Williams: Okay. A lot of this discussion going forward is going to be about one of my favorite subjects, which is hypocrisy. I think hypocrisy ruins the world, among other things. Let’s go there a little bit. So, it’s not Phil Mickelson that does this, it’s Pat Perez. Is he DQ’d?

Ted Bishop: That’s a great subjective question. I would say that he might have been DQ’d. I would also say this, I know Phil well, as well as I guess I could have in the position that I was in. I like him, but I also think that sometimes there’s nothing that he doesn’t do without an agenda. I think that clearly what he did on Saturday was basically his way of really trying to show up the USGA for what he felt like was not a good course setup.

Michael Williams: You know the other thing that he did, it hasn’t been talked about at all, but I thought really served as a frame of reference for what he did on 13, was the putt he made on 14. Because he hits the green on 14, and instead of going right at the hole, he went, what, six feet to the right of it and up the bank, and tried to bring it in from above the hole back down to it and into the backdoor. He hits that putt, and then like turns to Beef Johnson, and is sort of like laughing and giving that Phil Mickelson smirk. To me, that’s like, okay, this is how you feel. You are saying and giving a clear statement that this course is unplayable, and I’m going to show you just how unplayable it is by hitting into the windmill on number 14 and trying to get it into the hole. Did you see that too?

Ted Bishop: Yeah. I can’t argue with any of that. Then, of course, you had the Twitter tirade that my friend Ian Poulter went through on Saturday night where he said some very derogatory things about Mike Davis and the USGA. I guess the difference between those two styles is that maybe Phil’s was a little bit more discrete than what Poulter’s was. But, I think there were a lot of negative reactions by players to what went on on Saturday, and how they displayed that certainly was different.

Michael Williams: So, it’s been my contention that what Phil Mickelson did will probably not dent his reputation among his fans. But within the people who are the guardians of the game golf, those people who wear green jackets, and pins, and crests, and things like that, I think it has taken an irreversible hit. What do you think?

Ted Bishop: Well, you know Michael, here’s what I would say. Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson are, in a lot of ways, are bullet proof for any of their actions. I mean, their fan base is loyal, and supportive, and that’s really kind of the interesting thing about this sport, is the fact that people just have a tendency to turn their head or overlook some things that happen that maybe aren’t really in the best interest of the game, and really doesn’t seem to tarnish them much going forward. I mean, Phil’s had other things that have come up in his career. I mean, the insider trading situation is one. If that was Pat Perez, would that have been handled differently? So, you know, I’ve always laughed about golf; for a sport that hangs its hat on ethics, and etiquette, and ideals, I do think that there is a lot of hypocrisy from time to time in the sport.

Michael Williams: Let’s go a little deeper into your tenure as President. I think most people know the situation where there was a series of tweets between you and Ian Poulter. In one of them, you made a comment that ultimately was determined to be sexist and damaging to the reputation of the PGA, and the golf industry in general. In a very short period of time between one tweet and a consideration of this action, it led to your removal as the President of the PGA. What’s your recollection of the timeline of that event? How do you look at it now?

Ted Bishop: Well, I mean, just the factual part of it was this. It took place on October 23, 2014. It was less than a month after the Ryder Cup, and I was working the Faldo Junior Series at the Greenbrier with Nick Faldo.

Michael Williams: And we were there at the Greenbrier at the same time.

Ted Bishop: Oh, no kidding?

Michael Williams: Yeah, we were there. I was doing a fundraiser for St. Jude’s and Faldo was the guest of honor. I was there that night.

Ted Bishop: Wow. You should have saved me. But at any rate, it was the last night that I was there. We were going to go out to Nick’s for a quick reception. He has a house there at the Greenbrier, and then we were going to go back and have dinner with the kids that night. I was looking at Geoff Shackelford’s blog, actually, and I had seen where Ian Poulter had released his new book called No Limits, and he had been very critical of Nick Faldo and Tom Watson both, actually. Watson is a Ryder Cup Captain, and it struck a nerve. It’s no excuse on my part, but it was really kind of the last straw in the aftermath of that 2014 Ryder Cup, so as you said, I called Poulter out on Twitter and Facebook, and referred to him as a little girl. The PGA and other people took offense to that remark. And actually, within 18 hours after my stupid remarks on social media, I was removed from office with 29 days left to go in my tenure.

Michael Williams: Stunning. With 29 days left to go, amazing. Amazing.

Ted Bishop: Yeah. I mean, I will say this, and I’ve said this 100 times, it was a very poor choice of words on my part, very stupid for the media training that I had had. I’m not going to apologize for standing up for two guys that I felt like were being unduly criticized, particularly in Tom’s case, as a Ryder Cup Captain being criticized by an opposing player. I really, I don’t make apologies for that, I just wish I would have chosen my words better. What I did was, it was stupid. I mean, I make no excuses. There’s a lot of ways I could have said it, but to use the term little girl, I just never even began to think of it from a sexist viewpoint, but it is what it is, and I was done.

Michael Williams: It was funny because you had been on my show not long before and we talked about the fact that your tenure was almost over, and I asked you about the practice of the U.S. presidents leaving a note in the office of the incoming President, for their eyes only.

Ted Bishop: I remember that. That was a great question.

Michael Williams: As you look back on it now, although it wasn’t a timely exit, what would you have put on your note in your desk for the incoming president?

Ted Bishop: I mean well, my mindset has totally changed since then. Another thing that was kind of interesting, obviously, in preparation for my outgoing speech at the annual meeting in Indianapolis, we were at the Grand … I’ll back up. A week before this all happened I was at the Grand Slam in Bermuda and we were having what really would be our final executive committee meeting with Kerry Haigh, Darrell Crall, Pete Bevacqua, Derek Sprague and Paul Levy and myself. I asked the PGA to kind of summarize my two years; I said, “Could you give me a timeline of just the things that happened in my two years which what kind of really put into play my remarks at the annual meeting?”

And, they came back about a week later and they gave me a five-page, single spaced document of all the things that happened in ’13 and ’14. And, there were a lot of really positive things that we did as an association, that we did for the game. I think we elevated the stature of the PGA of America and the golf community. And unfortunately, even to this day I feel like my stupidity on social media wiped out a lot of that work. They always say to any kind of a leader, “How will your legacy be defined?” And, I think had it not been for that minute and a half of really dumb, irresponsible action on social media, my legacy in golf probably would be a hell of a lot different than what it is today.

Michael Williams: I applaud you for being a man and stand up and taking responsibility for your actions. But again, the rails that we’re riding this train on for this part of the conversation is hypocrisy. You didn’t use any of The Forbidden Seven. You didn’t say anything that you could have been fined for by the FCC. You called the guy a little girl. But, when you looked around the room at the people who were judging you, do you think that there was any one person around there who hadn’t at some time said to a playing partner when they hit a putt short, “You gotta hit it Nancy.” Or, “Hit it again, Shirley.”

Ted Bishop: No, there’s no question about it, and we had situations in my two years as the president where we actually had past presidents and we had board members that we kind of had to sanction. And when I say sanction, I mean, I felt like we did it in a very responsible and gentle way. We brought the people in, we said, “Look, you can’t be saying this. You can’t be doing this. You represent the largest working sports organization in the world.” And, I think that was a bitter pill for me, the way that my whole thing went down. Some of that didn’t happen. That being said, again, I’ll make no excuses. I’m the guy at the top of the ladder and I’ve got to set an example for everyone within the association. And, I should have done that, but I would say that certainly there were other disciplinary cases and there have been since that weren’t quite handled the same as mine.

Michael Williams: When you look now and you see the things that are said by athletes, by entertainers, and I’m going to go there, even by the President of the United States about women, seemingly without consequence, it’s hard not to be bitter, Isn’t it?

Ted Bishop: Yeah, but I just never wanted to be that guy. That’s why I just try to come back and really throw myself into my family and my business and just try to move on and not get caught up with that. That was one of the reasons that I wrote the book. I wanted to try to educate people on your responsibilities with social media and I’ve spoken on this topic. And, I guess that was really to this day, that’s my biggest disappointment, Michael, with the PGA of America.

I could have been a poster child for all those things. I think I could have helped with a golf professionals, but I could have helped people in general doing a lot of the things that I’m doing now. So, when it was all said and done I thought, “You know what? That is what I’m going to do. I’ll just take matters into my own hands and try to do that.” And, that’s kind of been my message and what I kind of stand for now. “Hey! Learn from my mistakes.”

Michael Williams: There’s a recent incident, again, most of our readers and listeners know about it and I know you know about it too, where Paul Levy, the current president of the PGA, was arrested last week on a DUI, driving under the influence. A statement of apology and contrition was made, but I have heard no word on any disciplinary action. And I say this noting that Paul Levy is a friend of mine. I really, really like that guy. But, isn’t it a double standard?

Ted Bishop: I think that’s for other people to judge and I’m not going to comment on Levy’s arrest. I think the PGA of America’s been pretty clear at this point that they stand behind him and they’re going to continue to do that. The way they’ve not messaged Paul’s situation to the membership compared again to the way my whole thing was handled, is kind of curious. But, I don’t know. Maybe they feel that my remarks were so insensitive and so violating to the diversity and inclusion principles that they have really made their platform over since 2014. Maybe that’s a bigger issue to them than the DUI. I don’t know, you’d have to ask somebody from the PGA of America.

Michael Williams: Yeah, I fully intend to. Thanks, and I’ll keep you posted on that. What’s your relationship with the PGA, professionally and personally right now?

Ted Bishop: I’ve tried to get as involved as I possibly can in my own section, the Indiana PGA. I’ve actually hosted and MC’ed our last few section awards ceremonies in the Spring, which I’ve enjoyed. I’ve had the opportunity to speak at some section meetings. I’ve led something that I think is critical to the future of the game right now and that was a junior pace of play pilot program that we had called Project 215 where we’re trying to get juniors to play nine holes in two hours and 15 minutes because I think the slow pace of play at the junior golf level is one of the things that’s killing the sport right now. That’s where I’ve really chosen to get involved with. One of the things that happened to me when I was impeached was that they took away my right to vote, they took away basically my right to be involved in any governance at the PGA of America level. So, I’m a guy that kind of has to rely on the local aspect of the PGA in my life right now. And again, that’s okay because selfishly, Michael, that’s kind of what influences my own little world each and every day and I’m done with the rest of it. However, I’ve really enjoyed the opportunity to work for MorningRead.com, which is a daily digital golf newsletter that Alex Miceli started and that’s kept me in touch with the game and I love to write and I felt that it kind of kept me relevant to a degree.

Michael Williams: As always Ted, thanks so much for your time and most of all for your honesty. In today’s world that’s pretty tough to come by.

Ted Bishop: I always love talking to you and I remember very well that first meeting we had down at the PGA show and I’m glad to call you a friend.

Your Reaction?
  • 18
  • LEGIT3
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK5

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending