V-grooves for Victory

Rumor has it that the USGA and the R&A will consider changing permissible groove specifications. Such a modification will have immediate knock-on effects on ball technology primarily. Since limitations on equipment have the most tangible effects on the professional and elite level amateur game, then any new golf ball, like many equipment innovations, would have to pass muster with the best players. Tour players receive big endorsement deals, for name and brand recognition translate into profit typically. Since the mass market provides the revenue and profit bases, manufacturers must build a brand and do so through the snob effect. Even casual players prefer to play at least the name brand of the world's best players. The public does not have to play the same exact ball as tour or club professionals, but brand recognition is vital to financial gain. Even if a manufacturer designs a ball well-suited to the average player, it might not sell if Tour players shun the professional's counterpart. Titleist has a huge share of the ball market though its NXT or DT ball may not be as good as a competitor's product for the average player. So, how could changing the rules on grooves end golf's live ball era, fundamentally an integral aspect to the game's expansion?

 

Deep, square grooves have more surface area. Hence, at impact, extra friction causes the ball to spin more. If a golf ball is struck properly - compressed, - the grooves shear the outer cover. A hard-edged metal surface traveling at high speed over a short interval will do that to a rubber. On its website, the USGA states, "The USGA continually tests golf equipment at its Research and Test Center in Far Hills, N.J., for conformity to the Rules. Without such rigorous equipment testing and research programs, advances in technology could soon overtake skill as the major factor in success." If it deemed that square grooves violate this principle, and irons would have to have V-grooves, ball manufacturers will scramble to adjust their product line. Since V-grooves will have less surface area and consequently generate less spin, harder-covered golf balls, which travel further and spin less, will fall out of favor. 

 

Either changing groove requirements or changing ball specifications have the ultimate desired effect of limiting ball flight. The difference lies in the sequence of who will have to convert first. If the ball must become softer, club makers will change to V-grooves so good players can control ball flight more consistently without tearing the cover. Conversely, if V-grooves go into effect, then hard covered balls will not allow players to control distance reliably. The decision to restrict grooves rather than directly limiting the ball ought to be a market based one. Whichever way causes less shock to the market and adversely impacts manufacturers and players of all stripes least, then that is the correct remedy. 

 

However, golf as a game, a sport, and an industry are at crossroads, and none of these entities are exclusive of the other two. For the game with deep traditional roots, staunching the march of science is imperative. As a sport with myriad ways of producing good scores, favoring one type of player nullifies the nuances which make it appealing in the first place. As an industry staking much to compete in a crowded marketplace, it has its own precession problem regarding growth. Is it better to attract many new consumers with the show of strength first and then convert them to the virtues of skill? Is it better to place be honest and stress that the point of the game is to get the ball in the hole? Through any limitation of ball flight, interest will wane as the spectacle of the power game recedes. Yet, by not addressing the distance issue, the stewards of the game risk alienating purists and traditionalists. Unfortunately, the solution is not determined entirely on the margin. 

 

It is not as simple as whether it is more profitable to keep appealing to core customers or to market to new ones. The growth of the game depends as much on access as it does on clever marketing gimmicks or a superstar. The USGA has the dual mission of maintaining competitiveness and being 'for the good of the game.' To fulfill the latter obligation, it shirks the former. That would be only for the good of the industry. Eight years after Titleist first released the Pro-V1, enough statistical data and anecdotal evidence about the power game merit a rethink on equipment. Vi et arte, strength and skill in Latin, is the motto of the Royal Dornoch Golf Club as well as other clubs in Britain and Ireland. Significant, for in tandem, they comprise the keys to having a good game.

Kool-Aid, Now in Gold Flavor

Fears surrounding the plunging dollar have sent some scurrying to history books for a remedy. Some, such as one-time presidential hopeful Ron Paul, have strongly questioned the merits of a fiat currency and insist upon a return to the gold standard. Before proceeding, please permit some definitions first and clarification second. essential to understanding the debate over currency. First, fiat money is backed by an implicit guarantee of the issuer. This contrasts to commodity money which represents a fixed value of a commodity per unit of exchange. Second, the United States eliminated the gold standard in 1933. It did not die in 1973 when the Bretton Woods agreement on fixed exchange rates collapsed.

 

So why did the US and Britain shift from commodity money to fiat money? Britain needed to fund a war. Faced with malaise, the American federal government opted to stimulate the economy through New Deal spending programs. Neither nation could have funded the ambitious scope and scale of those projects without access to credit and raising debt. Financial markets have matured and become virtually perfectly competitive, and returning to commodity money would diminish the advances markets have made since the dissolution of the Bretton Woods accord. Returning to the gold standard comes with other problems. 

 

Starting with the outside in, what would it mean to American trading partners? Whatever fixed value the government may give the dollar would upset one of its chief trading partners. Universal satisfaction and agreement in the WTO, let alone the EU or China, is as likely as getting a room of random people to agree on pizza toppings. Moreover, valuation would reflect current economic conditions. How would it affect existing debt? What would be the knock-on effects on emerging market nations or the global exchange rate mechanism? Such a move would isolate America when it can least afford to do so. 

 

Next, what about the role the central bank would play in maintaining price stability and applying monetary policy? How free would the FOMC be to set interest rates to respond to price signals? Could a Federal Reserve beholden to the gold standard coordinate security sales and short term lending with the ECB, BOJ, or Bank of England in the event of credit constraints? 

 

Furthermore, the rate of technological advancement of production techniques as well as goods and serviced traded has accelerated more than the ability to fill treasury coffers with shiny stuff. In the absence of sufficient shiny stuff, debt service and necessary discretionary spending on defense, infrastructure, and law enforcement - the essential services of government - would become increasingly burdensome. 

 

How come the status quid pro has so much cachet? Perceived and actual malfeasance by financiers has prompted this reaction. A commodity currency, return to the gold standard in particular, would forestall repeats of recent events such as the subprime fiasco, the concomitant central bank bailouts, and the moral hazard precedent. What advantage does gold have in the 21st century that it lacked in the 20th?

 

In the good old days of gold, the preferred method of economic stimulus was war. If we lacked a commodity, and a weaker country had it, then we used to expropriate it by politics through other means. Though globalisation signals cut-throat, cost competition to some, the WTO, customs unions, and trade forums show that cooperation produces greater returns for all. Moreover, gold did not provide the stabilizing anchor during the industrial age. In the information age, a currency backed by gold will be held back by gold. 

 

While all fiat currencies have failed throughout American history, commodity currency does not guarantee a strong currency. Price instability and inflation were the lag effects of the Hume gold transfer mechanism. As exports grew, the flows of gold into a country increased, the economy expanded, and strengthened the currency. Hence, its citizens could consume more imports. However, when the currency became so strong that the export market shunned the newly high prices, the economy would slide into recession. How is this an advantage?

 

Beyond circumstantial evidence and the fact that fiat currency has failed in the past, little substantiates that a gold standard to the dollar would provide a palliative to the imbalances of speculative bubbles, reckless borrowing and spending, and the ills of the current credit market. Moreover, without having sorted the extent of the present credit crisis, a return to the gold standard would be dangerous. Even if the US returned to the gold standard, how long could it manage it while maintaining a negative trade balance and a high propensity to import? 

 

For all the purported stability, gold standard advocates seem to forget the currency runs, economic panics, and the social cleavages between debtors and creditors. The crucial question is what does a weak currency represent? High imports, high consumption, high public and consumer debt. If atavistic Americans cling to dollar strength and supremacy, then consumers, firms, and government must learn what anyone trying to get fit already knows: lay off the sweets, especially the Kool-Aid.

In Praise of 'Shameless'

During a trip to Australia in 2006, a friend of mine introduced me to the British television series Shameless. It quickly struck me as one of the best plotted, most entertaining television programs I had ever seen, and I have reviewed it since Sundance Channel began airing it in America. Though critics have lauded the show rightfully, I will use this space to expound on two possible reasons why the show has been successful. 

 

First, the actors cast to play Frank's children do so without saccharine, cheeky predictability. Unburdened by cutesy artifice or trite caricature, the viewer can experience a depiction of what it may be like to grow up hard. Evocative, empathetic, their performances within the collective construct of the family or as the featured, individual vignette in a given episode do not command a response. Rather, the viewer can respond genuinely to impressions rooted in fact rather than ideas. As literature, the show does not make a deliberate point, but the performances allow the viewer to draw his own conclusions about psychology, morality, and society.

 

On the second score, Shameless takes place in Manchester on a lower class housing estate rife with petty crime, teenage pregnancy, and substance abuse. Recently, television audience preferences have leaned towards shows about the wealthy or the middle class. Despite the success of programs like Good Times, All in the Family, and Married with Children, quotidian working class travails do not have much appeal. As social commentary and as well crafted comedy, those programs did not shy away from story lines about existential struggle, a Marxist determination against a superstructure, or overcoming the circumstances of a tough life. Perhaps bourgeois sensibility does not want its entertainment to shock, but a cultural landscape devoid of artistic rendering of a multi-faceted society is more of the issue. Fictional content shows lose viewership to reality programming as well as non-television alternatives, and, hence are not as profitable to vet each season. Seemingly, animated series such as South Park, The Simpsons, and The Boondocks have picked up where their aforementioned forebears left off, but their thrust comes from using cartoons as effective satire to point out grotesqueness, to depict distortions, and to dispel taboos. NBC's My Name is Earl, though revolving around the exploits of a segment of the lower middle class population, seems to propagate stereotypes of poor, white Americans as buffoonish and ignorant. 

 

Where others have failed, Shameless succeeds in intertwining some gravitas into its stories without taking itself too seriously. Subtle, witty, it neither glorifies living on state aid, nor does it beg its audience to pity the unfortunates. In the tradition of Hardy's Wessex or a Breughel canvas, the Chatsworth Estate is a landscape portrait of complexities, humor, and human pain. Cheers for its creator, producers, cast, and all affiliated with the program for accomplishing the difficult task of putting out a respectful treatment of unique, variegated lives. Cheers for courage in creativity.

Yid Moments

In Grandpa's Fight an episode of Aaron McGruder's Boondocks, main character Huey Freeman considers the significance of his granfather beating up an even older man. He refers to the shame felt not only for himself but also for his people as a "nigger" moment. Seemingly, any minority, racial, religious, or sexual subgroup could point to an instance when the misbehavior of one of its members makes as big a statement about the group as it does about the individual resppnsiblke for the act. Enter the most gropingest governor this side of the Sierras, Elliot Spitzer, the man responsible for my recent yid moment.

 

Forget he cut his political figure by casting himself as a figure of probity. Who cares about this in the context of his career? Certainly, I feel bad for the women in his life, but, hey, the guy is the 21st century dirty Jew - cheating on his wife, doing so on the taxpayers' dime, then having the chutzpah althewhile to go after New York state legislators for misuse of state funds. This is not a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy. It is a sad day to be a Jew. 

 

In my people's history, there have been lots of sad days, but we are only two generations removed from protective covenants, university admissions, the taboos of a white-bread, milquetoast America where direct involvement in politics was a sucker bet for minorities. However, though ethnic and racial groups assimilate into the national culture, though they enjoy greater legal protection of culture and expression than before, one slip up rewinds, even for a little while, the gains any one of those groups have made in the public eye. Any transgression by an unwhite or unChristian person has a compound effect. The peril lies in condemnation for the act itself, as well as associating such behavior to the group rather than the transgressor. This benighted thinking seems less prevelant in a politically correct society where the fear of repercussion for insensitivity mitigates the expression of what people really feel. Yet, it is equally insideous. Merely because no one hears back lash of the racist sort does not mean the underlying tension and prejudice does not exist. Even America has had institutional anti-Semitism, though not as violent, as overt, or as state sponsored as 'liberal' European nations. So, should Jews worry about it when one of their own has gone wild?

 

David Berkowitz killed lots of pretty white girls. No pogroms. Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, the Kristols and Norman Podhoretz were either architects or advocates of the ongoing Iraq War. 4000 American combat troops have died. Many others have suffered mental and physical trauma. No book burnings, no Night of Broken Glass. Maybe the haters have lost their spine. Hence, worry might seem premature, but the moral of Malamud's The Fixer that Jews cannot afford to be 'unpolitical,' that eternal vigilance is the price of survival as well as liberty, should still merit attention. 

 

However, the best way to work through this recent crisis of cultural faith might be the way Jews have coped for years: laugh. The man screwed up his family life. He ruined his political career. How is that funny? For starters, he paid for a hooker by wire. For a Princeton man, he sure is daft. Did he ever prosecute a hooker while he was an NYC DA? Did he believe he was the inspiration for Michael Moriarty's character in Law & Order? The man's name will forever be a punchline. At least, the joke will only be funny while late night television hosts deem it to be, fifteen minutes if we're lucky.

Put Me In, Coach!

Though the Masters is still a month a way, few can dispute that the Ryder Cup will be the biggest event this year for competitive golf. Given the recent dominance by the European side, some have lamented that American golf is doomed. Not only does European supremacy indicate a nadir in American golf, but that only 21 of 64 contestants in the recent Match Play signify a dearth of elite American talent. Furthermore, according to the Official World Golf Ranking (OWGR), Europe claims ten of the top thirty worldwide to America's eight. Only 33 of the top 100 in the OWGR are American born. Examining other metrics, one can see the Cassandras have overblown the demise of the game in America.

32 different American born players won 36 of 47 titles on the PGA Tour last year; 9 foreigners claimed the other eleven. Of the 125 players who finished 2007 fully exempt for 2008, 45 represent international flags. American winning percentage - 40%, foreigners - 20%. Pretty convincing metric. The US side dominated the President's Cup against an international team that had a pair of repeat winners on the 2007 PGA Tour (Vijay Singh, KJ Choi), Tiger beater Nick O'Hern, Aussie standouts Scott, Appleby, and Ogilvy as well as the South African quartet of Immelman, Sabbatini, Goosen and Els. Include Weir and Cabrera, and the resumes on this roster will pale the 2006 European Ryder Cup team members. The major tote board between those two sides favors the internationals 10 to a then 1; Padraig Harrington's Open victory at Carnoustie raised the Euro total to 2. Why, although its players win with greater efficiency and succeed in President's Cup matches, then, does the US have its back waxed both on home soil and abroad? A plausible answer is format.

The President's Cup has a four day format where players will play only one match three of four days. Also, playing once everyday allows a golfer to maintain the routine one is accustomed to playing full field events. Also, the first two team match days require all to play; only on the third day with morning and afternoon team matches, five in each session, will players sit out. Ryder Cup play is crammed into three days where two a days for the first two days of competition are de rigeur for the best players. With only four matches in morning and afternoon sessions, captains must choose the players wisely. Putting the best pairings together is one of the most scrutinized combinatorics problems. Though European Captain Mark James has been villified for front loading the 1999 Matches with his best players, trying to build an insurmountable lead prior to the singles match day makes a lot of sense. Fatigue did set in eventually, even with young and fit stars like Sergio Garcia and Jesper Parnevik. However, the world's best are elite athletes that ought to suck it up and deal for the pride and honor of representing their homelands. So what other explanation is there for poor results? What might Captain Azinger do differently, especially against a thinker and manager like counterpart Nick Faldo? Math and chemistry.

American captains have not distinguished themselves in optimizing the talent on American teams. Amendments to the selection process ought to help. Cuts made and money earned are the mitigating criteria now. Top ten finishes mean less when the money has become so good that players cherry pick their venues. Playing where one has had past success helps keep up confidence, and that is the key to putting together a streak of high earnings weeks. Making the Ryder Cup team is indeed an honor to all PGA Tour players, and those who can poise themselves to do so will play a schedule to maximize the chance of earning a spot. Also, four captain's selections make playing one's way onto the team more of a meritocracy. Moreover, it allows the captain to pick either players whose games suit the venue or those who would complement one of the eight in the team format matches if no suitable partner exists within the ranks of those eight players. Many other factors determine whom Captain Azinger will eventually select, and the process is not so formulaic. Few things merit consideration. First, the long layout suits bombers. In 2000, the year Titleist introduced the seamed Pro-V1, and manufacturers built thin faced titanium drivers, three of the four longest on tour that year tore up Valhalla. Though short knockers like Bob May and Scott Dunlap had good tournaments there, they were not so short statistically speaking. Both ranked within the top half of driving distance. Both finished with average distances higher than the mean for all players ranked in that category. Second, Tiger Woods will play at a venue where he has won before. Hence it is less urgent to find a suitable partner for the better ball sessions. His score alone ought to be good enough to compete against whomever Europe has pitted against him. However, finding the right complement to play alongside Woods in foursomes remains somewhat vexing. He has won with Furyk, Love and O'Meara. The three share the common denominator of driving accuracy. Allowing Woods' fine iron play to take over is essential in the alternate shot format. Next, choosing the ironmen, those playing in all five match sessions, is critical. In 2006, Cink, Mickelson, Woods, and Furyk all played five matches and earned eight of 20 possible points. Having the four best players play the most makes sense on the surface, but the golf course may not favor them necessarily. Moreover, no matter what the stakes, playing the same course five times in three days might become boring. The captain should have the final decision over who plays, but having some feedback from the squad may be no bad thing. Finding out who likes the golf course ought to help determine the roster for each session. Given Phil Mickelson's parlous performance in foursomes, maybe he ought to sit out those frames. Also, finding compatible games rather than compatible players is the basis for chemistry rather than the popular perception of camaraderie. To reiterate, other competitive factors such as likely opposition, course conditions, and whose game is sharpest hold greater weight come matchtime, but sorting who will play with whom in advance, much like putting together penalty killing, scoring, or checking lines together in hockey, lessens the effect of externalities on the margin.

To conclude, though the points race will evolve over the course of the year, here is a list, in no particular order, of some young players (all are within the top 50 of the 3/10/08 points standings) who, if they do not make the squad by dint of performance, certainly merit consideration as one of the four captain's picks:

1. Hunter Mahan
2. Jeff Quinney
3. Brandt Snedeker
4. Troy Matteson
5. John Mallinger
6. D.J. Trahan
7. Bubba Watson
8. Steve Marino
9. Dustin Johnson
10. Anthony Kim
11. Lucas Glover
12. Sean O'Hair
13. Nick Watney

By the look of it, that roster (whom to omit will make a good barroom debate) may have enough firepower to take down Europe. So much for the decline of American golf.

3 Wishes

As an institution, the legislative branch has accomplished little of distinction recently. Consequently, the press rightly dubbed it a "do nothing" entity during the session preceding this one. Despite the effort of House Speaker Pelosi to dispel this notion over the first hundred days of the present session, little has changed. During the first six years of the Bush administration, the Republican party controlled the House, and Vice President Cheney held the tie breaking vote in the Senate. Even after Democrats wrested a majority in the 2006 midterm election, divided government, which provided adequate impetus for clash and compromise during the Reagan and Clinton years, still seems supine even up against an unpopular lame duck. As public attention focuses on presidential primaries, Congress has vetted little noteworthy legislation. So perhaps the explanation for passivity within the legislature may have a structural basis.

Since the catchy political idea of the day seems to be change, especially espoused by Democratic presidential hopefuls - both of which are senators, why have their fellow Democrats not seized upon the opportunity to get a head start? They could even take a cue from presumptive Republican nominee McCain whose name has been on the byline of several significant bills. However, the relative merits and drawbacks of McCain sponsored bills are not the issues. Rather, why have legislators resigned themselves to a seeming wait and see approach? Despite wielding a veto, President Bush lacks the political capital to oppose initiatives which are popular (SCHIP). Despite a shelf life of less than a year, this Congress can exact some vengeance on an administration which ran roughshod over the legislature and claimed more power for the executive branch in the process. It has a chance to win back some of the turf it has lost. In a turn of odd poetic justice, it can force the hand of the same man which has forced its hand for the past seven years. Congress can finally play some offense, yet, oddly, it seems intent on running down the clock.

Pervasive, palpable, indiscreet, this tactic is highly disingenuous to the public. In a grander strategic context, it still does not make sense. Congress has governed itself poorly. Why is the market for political ideas failing? There are three faults within the structure of modern legislature: districting, the absence of 'no-compete' moratoria for lawmakers becoming lobbyists upon their exit from office, and, as noted previously in this space, earmarking. Start with the latter:

- Earmarking is rampant. It has replaced caucus and debate as the vogue, efficient means of accumulating votes to pass a bit of legislation. The economic repercussions are grave as this system has placed price tags on Congressional votes. As an example of market failure, it should be abolished, since even doling out millions in pork is insufficient incentive to write purposeful laws.

- Second, congressmen joining the cadres of K Street immediately after retirement or losing an election gives those exiting the public sphere prolonged, ex officio access to government. Not only is this downright un-American, it is also very French. In legally acceptable employment contracts, major corporations prohibit workers from joining competitors unless a minimum time interval elapses. Competition and intellectual property concerns override any other considerations. There is no reason why Congress ought not to have similar 'non-compete' rules governing its former members. There are myriad opportunities in the private sector for lawmakers who have had enough of a public sector salary and want to earn more. Insider status allows them to influence debate unfairly. Born of the Progressive period, lobbying is a good thing, but it fails when a newly forming, incestuous political class monopolizes access to government.

-Lastly and most importantly, Congress ought not to have authority to determine the geographic boundaries of voting districts. Gerrymandering is a political relic worthy of relegation. On the state level, voters disgusted by the entrenchment of 'safe' seats for a particular party have considered other means to mark voting districts. A popular remedy has involved asking committees of retired judges to set boundaries so that districts look less like Rohrshack ink blots. The Supreme Court ought not to be bothered with this task. Rather, the Census Bureau has the best factual basis of any part of the federal government to determine districts. Moreover, the Census Bureau aggregates statistics essential for forecasting budgets and allocating resources. If the Census Bureau seems too unconstitutional a choice, then the power should lie with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is an arm of Congress.

The status quo has too many leakages. After establishing an uncompetitive, 'safe' seat for his home district, an outgoing congressman can join a lobby firm, donate to the campaign of his chosen successor, then, after watching his fair haired boy win, still influence legislation, political discourse, and resource allocation to his district and clients while earning a private sector wage. Bullshit. Total bullshit. Rather than seize back some of the balance lost over the past seven years, Congress has waged a stealth campaign of expanding its powers while avoiding confrontation with the executive, the real bully who still wins political street fights. Co-opting the political, constitutional process is a horrible trend. Doing so at the expense of the public it ought to represent is reprehensible. Between doing nothing and flagrant cheating, the public pays the price of an unquantifiable, though clear cost.

West Coast Eye Candy

Here are a few snapshots from the 2008 PGA Tour West Coast Swing. The really good ones were taken by John Rathouz. I ought to have a link to more of his pictures soon. Enjoy.

a. Top left: Fred Couples, #16 TPC Scottsdale. Photo by John Rathouz

b. Top right: Johnson Wagner, Torrey Pines. Photo by John Rathouz

c. 2nd row left: #10 Riviera Country Club (black and white). Photo by John Rathouz

d. 2nd row right: Andrew Buckle, #4 Spyglass Hill

e. Bottom left: View of #18 Green Pebble Beach