Honesty Boxes and the Dubious Ethical Extrapolation

The New York Times got around to chronicling the existence of honesty boxes on the remote and rural golf courses of Scotland. Such boxes, used rarely in instances where it makes no financial sense for a course to employ an attendant, are one of Scottish golf's splendid curiosities, an anachronistic idiosyncrasy, in an age where, apparently, the majority of patrons can be trusted to drop 10 quid in the slot before teeing off on the local nine-holer.

The correspondent, Carol Wallace, found her subject in Strathtay, about 70 miles from Edinburgh. My own experience was quite a bit more remote, in the Outer Hebrides, where Harris Golf Club maintains an honesty box -- rusted and weathered -- that looks like it came right from the prop shop. It was there where I met a twosome who reported seeing the boxes with some frequency as they played their way around the outer Scottish Isles: the Orkneys, the Hebrides and the Isle of Skye.

For enforcement, Wallace describes an arrangement whereby the greenskeeper, the course's sole employee, earns an incentive if he catches "ticketless patrons on the course." What she doesn't say is how the patron obtains a ticket, since the box in the photo doesn't appear to be automated -- as, say, a ticket dispenser at a toll booth or parking lot entrance. And the club secretary estimates that between 2 and 5 percent of the 1,400 golfers who play the course do so without paying.

The fact that the box makes financial sense for the course is supported and justified by what Styled to a Tee calls "golf's dubious ethical extrapolation." This goes roughly like this: Because golf has long been played by gentlemen who know, understand and adhere to its rules and, as it so happens, willingly and readily call penalties on themselves, anyone (and almost everyone) involved in the game -- even tangentially -- can be trusted to adhere to the highest ethical standards.

This is precarious proposition and flawed reasoning at best, and has been used to justify all matter of logic leaps, including professional golf's woefully slow move into testing competitors for use of performance-enhancing drugs. In my own humble experience, I've seen all manner of stroke shaving, rule bending, and outright cheating at many levels of the game. Some of this can be explained as ignorance, some as clearly conscious, purposeful behavior. It's my opinion that golf holds no special purchase as being absent the ethical pitfalls and malefactors who inhabit modern life.

I'd go so far as to say that the great remaining territory for the intrepid golf journalist concerns this very topic: cheating. Here are a few questions I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss.

       On the issue of banned substances, notably HGH among the 50-and-over set: When participants are so incentivized but battling time and the myriad ailments that accompany aging, what might be the temptation to use a substance whose reported therapeutic effects include increased muscle mass, increased energy and resistance to injuries.

        On the issue of recreational drugs, notably marijuana: Will the Tour acknowledge that players who test positive might, in fact, be seeking performance enhancement with a drug reputed to combat hypertension, calm nerves and bring a well-chronicled mellowness to users?

        On the issue of square grooves vs. v-grooves: Are we to believe that no player would attempt to secure a wedge or lofted club with grooves so altered as to further enhance the ability to spin and control a golf ball out of the rough? If square grooves are better at this than v-grooves, wouldn't bigger, or deeper square grooves work even better? Beginning in 2010, the Tour is prepared to check grooves. What about the last five to 10 years of competitive golf? Did any player gain an advantage, say, making cuts, cashing lucrative checks at a greater rate or winning tournaments by exploiting technology not readily or commercially available?

        Before I'm accused of painting with too broad a brush, for setting aside golf's rich tradition of honor and integrity, let me say that we live in an era of acknowledged moral and ethical laxity. It's astonishing how few ask "What's right and what's wrong?" From elected leaders (notably senators and governors) to financial titans to professional athletes of all stripes, be it baseball players, cyclists, NASCAR drivers. I'm not sure why golf, relying on a notion of competitive purity as quaint as an honesty box, continues to issue itself a perennial pass on ethical issues. -- Robert Lohrer

Bethpage '09: The Real Legacy

Much of the talk about the true significance of holding a U.S. Open at a public golf course is not exactly on point. "The People's Open" sounds great, but simply holding the championship at a municipally operated -- in this case, Bethpage is state run -- venue isn't likely to trigger greater rates of golf participation. Nor does it herald an era when golf will be more democratic, more demographically diverse, or appealing to more participants.

Bethpage is but a piece of a larger puzzle; a step in a long progression. It remains to be seen what route the USGA -- golf's strongest governing body -- does in the wake of staging two consecutive Opens at public courses.

Here's the rotation for the next several years:

            2010: Pebble Beach

            2011: Congressional

            2012: Olympic

            2013: Merion

            2014: Pinehurst

            2015: Chambers Bay

On the face of it, the lineup reads like the traditional informal rotation with the usual heavy representation of private country clubs in the Northeast or across the country's northern tier. There are two exceptions: Merion and Chambers Bay. Merion is a traditional venue but hasn't hosted a U.S. Open since 1981, when it was the site of its fourth national championship. The USGA's move away and return has much to do with the evolution in equipment and the recent course lengthening to 6,846 yards. More interesting a choice (for the tradition-minded USGA) is Chambers Bay, a design of recent vintage by Robert Trent Jones II.

Not only is it a new venue -- it will host its first USGA championship, the U.S. Amateur, next year -- it's also somewhat off the well-worn USGA path. Located on Puget Sound, near Tacoma, Wash., it's about an hour south of Seattle and it's open to public play.

With the staging of a second Open at Bethpage and two consecutive on public courses, the USGA will likely know how successful these were, measured by a matrix of attendance, logistics, ability to attract and host corporate sponsors and, of course, the merits of the course itself. The USGA may have been bold in deciding to take the Open to Bethpage in 2002, but the genie is out of the bottle. And any move away from public venues -- and, in fact, any evolution that doesn't increasingly take the organization's championships to new venues over the next 15 years -- will be seen as retrenchment. Or admission that the move to venues like Bethpage, Torrey Pines and Chambers Bay was, ultimately, a step in the wrong direction.

Why is it necessarily better to be playing the national championship on these courses than a pure rotation of the best private courses (Oakmont, Olympic, Southern Hills, Winged Foot and Shinnecock) with a few resort courses (Pebble Beach and Pinehurst) sprinkled in?

Our thinking goes something like this. Tiger Woods' great gift to golf -- among the many -- is that the Woods Era would welcome more people to the game, participation would increase, and the galleries, once made up disproportionately of those who played golf at private clubs, would come to look more like the fan bases who attend football, baseball and basketball games.

With Tiger (probably) slightly more than midway through his career, not all of that has happened, particularly on the participation front. On the other hand, the boisterous galleries of Bethpage (and I don't mean the drunks among them) were a reminder that new galleries are there and that they don't sound and act like the galleries of yore. Some may judge it better, some may judge it worse, it is certainly different. Daring to evolve in that direction will be one of the great challenges the USGA faces in the next 10 to 20 years. -- Robert Lohrer            

Phil, the Guy Who Has Everything, Might Trade Most All of It...

Phil the Thrill, Phil the Fashionista, Phil the-guy-who-has-everything. Well, he might just trade most all of it for his wife's good health. Amy Mickelson, Phil's constant companion (sorry, Bones) for the duration of his professional career, has been diagnosed with breast cancer, the family announced late last week.

In support of Amy, PGA Tour golfers playing Saturday at Colonial, and their wives, are planning to wear pink. Those attending are being encouraged to wear pink. Pinkalicious, I say. Pinknation. Pinkyouverymuch.

Having a five-year-old daughter, I have learned firsthand the transcendent power of pink. As a consciousness-raising statement for preventative health care for women and the ongoing battle against breast cancer, pink is a good start.

In our celebrity-driven, celebrity-obsessed age, causes tend to acquire faces. The higher-profile the celebrity, the more money/attention/research inures to the cause. I'm guessing Amy Mickelson probably didn't see herself as the face for such noble work, but years walking and basking in reflected limelight may have prepared her well for what's ahead.

Whether you like him or not -- and knowledgeable golf fans seem to fall into one of the two camps -- Phil has been more than a great golfer. He's been a very, very good sportsman and great entertainment. Whether he's winning or six back, Phil always goes for it, just the way Arnold always did. Except, of course, when he's off-loading his driver and doubling down on wedges.

In any case, he's suspended his Tour schedule indefinitely as his wife embarks on a battle -- fighting cancer -- that too many of us are familiar with, whether it's through immediate family or friends. Fans will miss Phil; the Tour will miss Amy.

It so happens I read Bob Verdi's excellent interview with Phil the evening before I read news reports of Amy's diagnosis. As Phil talked about some of his obscure birthday gifts -- meteorites and dinosaur heads -- it was hard to not come to the conclusion -- even Phil did -- that these were the trappings of a man who indeed has all the material pleasures money can buy, an individual who truly enjoys the wages he's earned, even if the pleasure -- a la Rosebud -- is as simple as driving 30 minutes for an In-N-Out Burger at lunch.

The Wilhelmina 7, Suddenly Stylish on Sunday

It's Sunday morning and I'm thinking LPGA. I'm not sure why but maybe it has to do with a few familiar names on the leaderboard heading into the final round of the final Corning Classic.

Not far off the lead of -17 (shared by Mika Miyazato and Soo-Yun Kang) are Minea Blomqvist (-15), Sandra Gal and Mikaela Parmlid (both at -14).

If the leaders should falter, all three would have a shot to win. This being the middle of Memorial Day weekend, I'm going to try to avoid checking the LPGA's real-time scoring and go for the delayed late-night telecast on The Golf Channel.

But to the reason why I'm interested in the three: They are members of the Wilhelmina 7, the group of seven golfers organized in 2008 and represented by the Wilhelmina modeling agency. Moving into its second season, the seven golfers have had mixed results, with most securing their playing status but rarely threatening the very top of the leaderboard.

Commercially, it's been something of a mixed bag, as well. Created by Wilhelmina in hopes that the idea of sponsoring seven attractive, successful female golfers would offer sponsors better visibility and  traction, it seemed a superb idea but has met with unfortunate timing. There have been a few sponsorships that otherwise wouldn't have come the way of the golfers, which include Anna Grzebien, Kim Hall and Joanna Head. (Earlier this year, Paige Mackenzie replaced Stacy Prammanasudh as the seventh member.) Mostly, however, the idea has not quite broken through the clutter of opportunities available to brand marketers.