Whiffling Straits Golf Blog

ON HIATUS

2011-05-24T21:10:00.000-05:00

Whiffling Straits is on hiatus while I concentrate fully on the Scratch in the Mirror book project. To follow my progress, please visit:

www.scratchinthemirror.com

Thank you for your continued support!

Masters Tap-ins

2011-04-05T21:32:00.000-05:00

A few backhanded stabs at the hullabaloo going on down in the sleepy little town of Augusta, Georgia this week ...

Phil the Fave

So before this past weekend, everybody was talking about how wide-open this year's Masters was. Now, suddenly, in the wake of Phil the Thrill's swashbuckling win at the Shell Houston Open on Sunday, Mickelson is suddenly the man to beat. It's an obvious conclusion, but is it a logical one?

I would love to see Lefty wearing his fourth green jacket come Sunday evening – for a variety of reasons. But it seems to me that Phil plays his best when expectations are low. Last year, no one expected much from him following a very mediocre performance in Houston the week before. Besides, he'd been through so much in the previous year. How could golf possibly be his top priority right now.

Image: AP via www.nj.com

Ditto last week, when Phil candidly talked about he wasn't going to be focused on winning in Houston as much as he was going to be working on the shots he would need at Augusta. As much as anything, I suspect he was trying to take the pressure off by saying those things. But guess what? Turns out those two objectives (winning and practicing) were not at such cross purposes. Phil won handily, displaying all the flair, risk-taking, and shot-making we see in Phil when Phil is at his best.

But now, instead of going into The Masters without having shown much this year (or since last year's Masters, for that matter), he goes in with expectations soaring. As he was closing in on his victory Sunday, NBC's Johnny Miller commented that the biggest thing Phil may have to practice between then and next Sunday would be "putting on his own green jacket"! How's that for a ringing endorsement?

I'm just sayin' ... I don't expect Phil to fold under the weight of expectations, but I think it's a possibility. (Not to mention that Phil can potentially get to #1 in the world with a Masters win – and he's historically blown it every previous time he's had a chance to do that.)

The Tiger Zone

A lot of people also seem to think that this may be the week Tiger finally returns to form. After all, they point out, he finished fourth last year after not having played a tournament in five months! Augusta is where he feels most comfortable, so it would only make sense that now, with the scandal further behind him and more "tournament-tested" than he was a year ago, how can he not improve on last year's performance?

Image: 3-Putt Territory via www.examiner.com

But the big wild card is still the swing change. He's still struggling mightily, seemingly hitting as many disastrously bad shots as "old Tiger" brilliant ones. And the expectations last year were rock bottom; there was no pressure for him to perform. Of course, one of the defining characteristics of Augusta National – as Phil demonstrated so brilliantly last year – is that it affords recovery opportunities (to those with the short games up to the task) like no other course. So it's certainly possible for Tiger to contend, or even win, without his ballstriking being at peak form.

It's cliche to say, but I think his putting will be the key. And he really hasn't shown much reason for confidence there in recent weeks either.

Supernatural Augusta

Augusta National has often struck me as the most unnaturally natural place you can imagine. It's nature manicured almost beyond recognition; almost beyond what you can really consider "nature." Almost supernatural. If there's golf in Heaven, I imagine the courses look something like the course The Masters is played on.

Image: Masters.org

On Monday night this week, a windstorm blew through the course and took down a few trees – not that you or anyone else would ever know it first-hand. The course's response to the damage was magnificently swift – and secretive, as reported today at golfdigest.com. Here's a sample from the full article:

Arriving at Augusta National shortly after 6 a.m. Tuesday, there were trees down in the parking lot. Entering the gates - only the media and others working on site were allowed on the property at that time - you were serenaded by the sound of power saws working as downed trees on the golf course were being removed. The normal 8 a.m. opening to the public was delayed and eventually pushed back to 8:45.

In the media food room was the odd sight of a dozen or so of the best photographers in the world sitting and drinking coffee, unable to go onto the course to shoot the damage. Those are the kind of images the folks at Augusta National Golf Club do not like the public to see. This is a place where even the garbage is green - all sandwich wrappers and every cup - and nary a cigarette butt can be found on the ground. This is a place where workers pick through the azalea bushes to remove dead leaves.

This just in: A tree apparently blew down during a practice round Tuesday afternoon. No one was hurt. But will we see pictures?

Stricker Update

Hey, it's been a while seen we've mentioned Steve Stricker here at Whiffling Straits, hasn't it? Well, let's remedy that right here. Two things ...

I couldn't help but notice that at least two writers over at golf.com mentioned Steve among their Masters picks in Monday's weekly PGA Tour Confidential feature. It seems his strong performance in Houston last week, where he finished alone in fourth, got some of their attention. He hasn't shown us much this year, but is he peaking at the right time? Well, according to local golf columnist Gary D'Amato ...

Stricker has been tweaking his swing a bit these past few months (and also sharpening his putting stroke on a putting green he recently built in his basement!) in an effort to correct a little something. It seems Steve, whose natural play is a slight draw, had begun hooking the ball a little bit more than the optimal amount. Stricker told D'Amato:

"I don't want to get rid of that (draw), but it's gotten to the point where I'm not getting a lot of (backspin) on my ball and I need that with my irons. I haven't hit my irons particularly well this year. I haven't played poorly, but I haven't played like I want to play yet."

I'm not ready to count Stricker among the favorites – my heart is not strong enough for that! But I like what I saw in Houston, and like everybody's been saying, this Masters is wide-open. At least, it was until a few days ago, and now Phil is the favorite, but ... [continue reading at top of page].

Cool Masters Stuff

2011-03-31T18:00:00.003-05:00

Golf Digest has posted a couple of very cool interactive features in recent weeks showcasing Augusta National Golf Club.
The first was this one, which visually chronicles all the significant changes made to each hole since the course was first built in 1934. Look at the difference, for instance, in the par-5 15th between 1934, 1970, and 2011 (click each graphic to enlarge):

The other is this hole-by-hole virtual tour, which includes a stunning animated "fly-over" for each hole. Just like the stuff they show you on TV, it lets you visualize each hole in a much more sensory way than a two-dimensional map allows. The opening graphic alone (shown below; click to enlarge) in and of itself provides a better overall picture of the course than I've ever seen before.

Are Jack and Arnie ready to hit their ceremonial opening tee shots yet? I can't wait!!

Coincidence?

2011-03-29T12:09:00.001-05:00

I love this story. Obviously, the biggest concern is the health of the new baby involved, but you almost can't help but wonder if the golf gods arranged this whole thing. If you were trying to promote the Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Children, you couldn't have written a much better script, a P.R. professional's dream ...
On Tuesday, March 22, Annika Sorenstam – one of the greatest women golfers of all time – went into premature labor – 13 weeks premature! Due to a condition called placenta abruption, there wasn't much they could do to delay the birth. Fortunately, Annika lives in the Orlando, Florida area, home to the Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Children, reknowned for the high-quality it provides to women in Annika's situation. Ron Sirak, who is close to Sorenstam and her family, writes eloquently about the experience. Here's an excerpt:

But the next chapter in parenthood is off to a much more challenging start, one that will be filled with uncertainty for months to come. In the early morning hours of March 21, Annika awoke Mike [McGee, her husband] and told him she was bleeding. After consulting by telephone with a friend, Dr. Matthew Siebel, they knew they needed to leave their Lake Nona home in Orlando and get to the hospital immediately.

"I drove fast and it was like a blur," Mike told GolfDigest.com. "We weren't sure what had happened and were scared that we may have lost our son. They were ready for us at Winnie Palmer Hospital and immediately did an ultrasound. When we heard his heartbeat we were immediately brought to tears of joy."

The good news is that Sorenstam and her new little boy, Will, are both doing well, though Will still has many challenging months ahead of him. In fact, his parents named him "Will" because "he's going to need to will himself through this process," Sorenstam said.
And here's the twist ... March 21 happened to be the Monday prior to the Arnold Palmer Invitational golf tournament ... in the Orlando, Florida area ... which supports, as its primary charity, the Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Children ... which just happens to be named for Arnold's late wife. On Sunday, during the last round of the tournament, Annika was able to join the telecast on NBC and talk about the wonderful care she and Will received (and that Will is still receiving) at the Winnie Palmer Hospital.

Photo: annikablog.com

Nice.
Congratulations to Annika and her growing family. Our prayers and best wishes will be with them all as young Will grows bigger and stronger by the day.

You can read updates about Will's progress at Annika's blog, www.annikablog.com.

Seven Years of College ...

2011-03-15T19:07:00.013-05:00

... down the drain!
     If only I'd known about places like this when I was 17. Back in those days, I was pretty much clueless about what to do with my life. I ended up enrolling in the local junior college just because I really had no idea what else to do. Golf was my big passion back then, but I wasn't really anywhere near good enough to pursue the only dream I ever had: to become the youngest Masters champion in history. So instead I just kind of floated along the next seven (or was it eight?) years at Parkland Community College and, eventually, the University of Illinois (where I once saw Steve Stricker in the Illini Union).
Now, I can't say I have any complaints about how things have turned out. I've been very blessed in my life. But if somebody had told me that places like the College of Golf at Keiser University (to cite just one example) even existed, I would have crawled to Florida if necessary to enroll. But I was just too dim back then to realize that there are career paths in golf besides "PGA Touring Professional."
     I mean, just look at the curriculum: classes in "History of Golf: Traditions and Culture"; "Golf Swing Fundamentals"; "Club Fitting and Repair"; "Golf Course Design" (!!!); and "Food and Beverage Services" (I think that means how to drive the beer cart), just for starters.
     The only drawback would appear to be that, as part of your education, in addition to the rigorous classwork and studying, they also expect you to ... play golf! And lots of it. Can you imagine? Students are apparently forced to make liberal use of the area's top-notch courses (with green fees included in the tuition) and world-class practice facility (pictured below), with instruction available from a resident staff of PGA Professionals (also included). Sounds awful, I know.

     I'd write more, but I suddenly can't stop crying for some reason. I just wonder if they have special scholarship programs for middle-aged mid-handicappers trying to learn to play left-handed. (Doesn't that make me a minority?) If they don't, it's probably just because they never thought of it before. A trip to Florida to enlighten them is probably in order.
     Honey, don't wait up! I'll be back in less than 72 (credit) hours.
     Oh ... and will you call the office for me?

Tiger and Sir Charles

2011-03-09T19:00:00.001-06:00

It has occurred to me recently that two very different golfers are working on swing changes at the same time I am: Tiger Woods and Charles Barkley.
     Tiger's quest is well-documented. He is working on the third major swing change (and thus the fourth different swing) of his career, with new teacher Sean Foley. His struggles are obvious, as he continues to confound the experts with his wild swings between brilliant and ordinary (and occasionally downright ugly) golf. It's been interesting to listen as commentators talk about how he is still occasionally reverting to his old swing habits, especially under pressure. His struggles reinforce how difficult it is to "unlearn" deeply ingrained habits. This is especially amazing when you consider how many hours and resources Tiger has no doubt poured into trying to groove his new swing. He remains very much a work in progress. (A new interview with Sean Foley is here.)
     Charles Barkley's struggles are also well known; even Hank Haney couldn't permanently fix the amazing and amusing massive hitch in his golf swing. So rather than continue to try to fight it, Sir Charles is reportedly (according to numerous sources, including Haney himself) learning to play left-handed. Yes, that's right. Just like The Whiffler.
     His new backhanded swing, however, is apparently not yet ready for prime time, so he continues to play his public rounds right-handed. Meanwhile, he reports that playing lefty has helped him enjoy the game again in a way he hasn't been able to since the full-swing yips first set in.
     Will he be successful making the switch? Based on my own experience so far, my guess is "yes" – so long as he's willing to put in the work. Based on the video evidence below, he still has a ways to go.

Brandel Chamblee: Rickie "Gets It"

2011-02-25T20:02:00.001-06:00

I love this, what Brandel Chamblee said about Rickie Fowler on the Golf Channel's "Morning Drive" show today:

It’s so rare when somebody like him comes along, and it’s very, very early in his career, he has yet to win – and yet he wields star power like someone who’s won 12, 15 times and a couple of majors. It’s the way he goes about what he does, as much as what he does. He’s just a very appealing golfer. He plays fast. His golf swing is unique. He plays shots … I heard yesterday when it came time to warm up, the contrast to Ben Crane, he (ben crane) was out there, and he had all these devices, and he was going through a very regimented practice session before he played, which is fine. That’s what Ben Crane does and it works for him. And Ricky came out and hit 10 or 15 shots and was ready to go. And that’s what’s neat about the kid, is that he’s a sharp contrast to the sort of homogenized look that exists in golf today.

[Question: “What does that mean when people say he gets it?”] Well, he understands the best way to play golf – and you know, this is my opinion – is to go out and to try to hit shots. There’s this … it’s the “big lie” to me, that you can go out there and swing perfectly. And I understand why guys do it. Literally, they’re trying to play this game in the most organized fashion. There’s so much money out there at stake, and if you can stay on Tour for a long time, you can get ridiculously rich. So what are you gonna do? You’re gonna work out, and you’re gonna get a sports psychologist, and you’re gonna get the video camera, and you’re going to take all these lessons … you want everything to just be perfect. And Rickie’s like no, I’m going to go out and I’m going to hit golf shots. I’m going to go out and I’m going to hit it high and I’m gonna hit it low, I’m going to draw it, I’m going to fade it. And I think … I don’t think, I know it’s because of the way he was taught the game. His teacher was very much into hitting golf shots. And that’s why he plays fast. Because he’s not out there thinking about a pre-shot routine. And he’s not out there thinking about swing mechanics. He’s out there thinking about golf shots. And it’s … you know, look. We’re not ready to put him in the Hall of Fame yet, but … when you watch Michael Jordan play basketball, you’re watching a guy who yes, he spent all these hours practicing. But it looks like art. It just looks like an athlete. And Rickie, he just looks like an athlete when he plays golf.

It meshes really well with something I've been thinking a lot about lately as I try to groove my new left-handed swing. And that's this: that the purpose of practice is to groove your swing to the extent where you don't have to think about it when you're out on the course competing. On the course, especially when the pressure's on, you don't want to be thinking about where your elbow is or what plane your swing is on or what your hands are doing. You want to be thinking about where you want the ball to go, what you want it to do.
     Think about throwing a baseball. Sure, a throwing motion is a lot less complex than a golf swing (to me it seems that way, anyway), but the principle is the same. If you're scooping up a grounder and getting ready to make a throw to first, you're not thinking about you're technique, you're looking at that first baseman's mitt and thinking about the ball smacking into the center of it. It should be the same thing with the golf swing. Yes, that's a very hard thing to achieve. And it probably applies more to professionals, who spend hours and hours on the practice tee than to people like me who (historically) have done most of their "practice" out on the course. But if you want to really improve, it makes a lot of sense.
     One of the things my new coach, PGA Professional Carl Unis, has told me is this: "An amateur practices until he gets it right; a professional practices until he can't get it wrong."
     Exactly right. A lofty goal, to be sure, but something to strive for.

From the "SIM" Journal

2011-02-25T19:00:00.005-06:00

A few excerpts from the very beginnings of my "Scratch in the Mirror" Journal ...

Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010
I went online to Golf Outlets and found some really cheap off-brand lefty putters. They look nicer than the Hippo [a cheap putter I found at a golf shop]. The one I have my eye on is a Odyssey two-ball knockoff – a “Texan” (same brand as Jack’s clubs!) for $12.99. Add $6.99 shiping and you get $19.98 – two cents cheaper than the hippo – and no sales tax!

     I think I may need to go for it.

Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2010:
So I did it – I ordered the putter. Does that mean there’s no turning back? Probably not, but it is a step in the direction of commitment. I’ve been imagining how I’ll set up my putting drills in the basement. I’m afraid I’ll get bored – that’s the pattern. I’m thinking 100 putts a night? And maybe throw in one of those “I have to make 20 in a row from four feet” kind of deals for good measure. I’m just not sure. But it’s easy to imagine hitting 10 or 15 putts and then getting “distracted” and just start whacking putts and not thinking about it. But maybe that’s OK at this stage, because my first step is just to get used to that left-handed motion. But then, if I get used to that motion with crappy technique that defeats the purpose – and sabotages the project before it even gets going.

Monday, Oct. 4, 2010:
I’ve realized that I probably should start out (putting) with some sort of a plan for instruction. Even just playing around with my existing putting stroke, I realized I don’t really know if I open and close the face or not. That is, whether I should be swinging the putter in a slight arc around my body or try to keep it square the whole way, like a pendulum (as Steve Stricker appears to). I think I probably do open/close it during the stroke, but only a little. The key is, I think, that I don’t think about it. I hope thinking about it doesn’t mess me up! ...

As it happens, the current issue of Golf Digest has a 30-page putting section. So I think I might just start there. I took a look at it at lunch today and wouldn’t you know it, one of the tips (from Dave Stockton, Phil’s and others’ putting guru) is to practice putting with just your left hand [or right hand, for a lefty], because it’s so important! I was already planning to do that! And it’s nice to know that this bit of information sort of backs up my theory. ...

Putter came today! Jack [my then-8-year-old son] and I went to the putting green at Brown Deer for about 45 minutes – we closed down the joint. ...

For my lefty putting, I thought about going cross-handed. That would be easy, right? Basically my right-handed putting grip, swinging the other way. But that seemed like cheating or something. I’m intrigued by putting grips where the hands are almost on top of each other. That kind of makes sense to me because it makes your arms symmetrical, and it seems like your shoulders would be more level, which makes sense. In fact, I’ve seen grips that take this to the extreme with a very wide putter grip that you grasp with two hands [on opposite sides], with palms facing each other. This makes a lot of sense. I’m not one to consider something so unconventional (no belly putters or “broomsticks” for me, either!). So I’m trying it with a grip where my hands overlap quite a bit, but the left hand is still low. ...

I figured out right away that I’m having a lot of trouble seeing where I’m lined up. On a number of occasions, after lining up a putt, I would hold the putter in place while stepping behind it to see where I was aimed – often not where I thought I was. In general, I think I was more often aimed to the right of where I thought I was lined up. Some of this may be the unfamiliar putter, but I think more of it may be that I’m not used to lining up a putt with “that side” of my face. I think there’s a big dominant eye factor.
     I practiced mostly 5-6 footers, trying to concentrate on just making a smooth, straight stroke. I also practiced some using only my right hand, which a lot of times felt actually easier than using both hands.
     My results were fairly mixed. There were times when it felt fairly natural to putt left-handed, and other times where it felt completely foreign.

Review: "Tiger vs. Jack"

2011-02-13T19:20:00.002-06:00

"Exhaustive."
That would be one word to describe author and fellow blogger Phil Capelle's epic work, Tiger vs. Jack: Golf's Greatest Rivalry. Other words would be "comprehensive," "thorough," and "impressive."

Capelle sets out to tackle an oft-debated question: "Who is the game's all-time best player, Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus?" You don't have to look too far to find a variety of opinions on the matter. But you'd be hard-pressed to find anything close to the in-depth look Capelle takes. Not content to simply add up the major championship victories, Capelle considers such factors as strength of competition, performance in different "types" of victories (blow-out wins, close wins, comeback wins, high-scoring, low-scoring, good-weather, bad, etc.), quality and consistency of golf swing, what he calls "contender finishes," the role of teachers and caddies, and even the role that luck has played in their 32 combined major championship victories. Just for starters.
Along the way, Capelle makes a few surprising (and sure to be controversial) points, including the case for why Bobby Jones's Grand Slam season in 1930 is "the most overrated feat in golf history":

"Here's why: the fields at the amateur events were watered down by the absence of the pros. And, at the U.S. and British Amateurs, the top amateurs of the other side did not compete." [page 24]

But don't take his word for it. Here, as throughout the book, the author offers plenty of numbers to back up his claims.
     And though he limits his best-ever discussion to the modern era (1958-present), he also makes a strong case why the great Walter Hagen should be credited with 16 professional major victories instead of the 11 the record currently shows. This would, of course, put him squarely between the Golden Bear and Tiger on the all-time list.
     If you're not a statistics junkie, there may be a few sections of Tiger vs. Jack you'll want to skim rather than read thoroughly. Capelle goes deep with his analysis on many topics. But what makes this 480-page tome (including the appendix and comprehensive index) so noteworthy is that all the information, and then some, is there if you care to dig in.
   It's clear that Capelle has a deep and abiding respect for golf history. He thereby avoids falling into the trap of giving greater weight to events that have occurred more recently, as you so often see in listings of "all-time great" teams and athletes in various sports. If anything, Capelle is biased to the opposite, perhaps looking back on occasion with an overly romanticized view of the past. But it's to his credit that he makes his biases known up-front. He grew up watching the Golden Bear dominate golf and makes no secret that he's a fan. His analysis is so quantitative and objective, however, that it's difficult to believe his admitted affections have affected his conclusions.
     What are his conclusions? I'll not spoil the movie here. But here's a hint: He takes a solid stand on the issue while also conceding that the closing argument has yet to be written.

Tiger vs. Jack is available at Amazon.com or through the author's website, www.capelleongolf.com.

"Scratch in the Mirror"

2011-02-11T19:49:00.003-06:00

Those who have been paying attention (is anyone still paying attention?) may have noticed that lately I've been posting a number of items about lefties – more specifically, natural righties who play golf left-handed, and vice-versa. That's because that's the subject of the book I've been working on – and what's been drawing my attention from blogging. I've decided that it's time to merge the two a bit and start blogging about the project. So here's the working introduction to Scratch in the Mirror: Right-handed Lefties, Left-handed Righties, and the Search for the Perfect Backhanded Golf Swing. By Mike Zimmerman. (You may notice that this earlier post was actually an earlier version of the introduction.)
Please don't hold back with your opinions. I can use all the feedback I can get!

Scratch in the Mirror – Introduction

Want to win a few bets at the 19th hole? Ask the others in your foursome how many lefties have won major championships in golf. Your knowledgeable friends will say three: Bob Charles, Mike Weir, and Phil Mickelson.
    Imagine their shock and surprise when you tell them – as you hastily collect your winnings – that none of those guys is a real lefty. Each is actually right-handed, but plays golf from the sinister side.
    Now imagine their rage when they realize you’ve tricked them. Fisticuffs ensue. Since you’re outnumbered three-to-one, they easily beat you to a pulp and take back their winnings. They also take your watch and the rest of the cash in your wallet, just for good measure.
    Man, who are these guys!? Why you would want to play golf with three jerks like that is beyond me, but who am I to judge another man’s friends?
    Later, in the ER, you tell your wife what happened and she asks the obvious question: “Well …? If not Charles, Weir, and Mickelson [your wife is very knowledgeable about golf; that’s why you married her], what is the right answer? Have any actual left-handers ever won a major professional golf championship?”
    A smile creeps across your bloodied face, but you wince only slightly at the pain. “Johnny Miller,” you gasp. “Greg Norman. Curtis Strange. Nick Price. David Graham. Byron Nelson.”
    A hush falls as doctors, nurses, assorted orderlies, and the little old lady in the waiting room stop what they’re doing and draw silently closer, hanging on your every word. Everyone is astonished by the revealed wisdom that has already passed your swollen lips, but you’re not done yet. With strength fading, you summon another breath and whisper, like Charles Foster Kane spitting out “Rosebud”: “Hogan.”
    A nurse faints. In the hallway, a bedpan crashes to the floor. Across the pond, a chill wind blows through “Hogan’s Alley” at Carnoustie.
“They’re all naturally left-handed,” you explain. “They only play golf right-handed.”
    A tear runs down your wife’s cheek as she turns to the attending physician and says, “Doctor, my husband is obviously delirious and in great pain. Can you do something?”
    Shaking his head with a sad and concerned look, the doctor lowers a mask to your face. Moments later the room goes dark and all is quiet.
    In retrospect, maybe you should have just stuck to the conventional wisdom. Or at least made the stakes a little lower.

• • •

Ever since I was a kid first taking up the game of golf, I was taught that the left hand is, or should be, the dominant hand in a right-handed golf swing. “You’re using too much right hand!” was my dad’s most consistent piece of advice. “Let your left hand pull the club through; don’t push it through with your right.”
    How can that be? I always wondered. I throw with my right hand. I write with my right hand. I hit my annoying younger brother with my right hand. Why wouldn’t I use my right hand more to swing a golf club?
    And, assuming it’s true that I shouldn’t, wouldn’t it make sense for me, as a right-handed person, to play golf left-handed?
That thought has haunted me ever since. And so when Phil the Thrill, the right-handed lefty, first burst onto the scene by winning the U.S. Amateur and a boatload of college titles (not to mention a PGA victory) as a young amateur, I assumed he was a product of just such a theory. Surely, I thought, someone must have groomed him to play as a southpaw with an eye toward testing this theory – and hopes of turning him into a world-class player.
    The truth, as it turns out, is more mundane – but at least as interesting. When Phil was first taking up the game as a wee lad in San Diego, California, he learned to swing a club by standing in front of his father and literally mirroring the elder Mickelson’s movements. At some point they tried to turn him around, to swing the club like a proper right-handed little boy. But Phil was a stubborn cuss, and he would have none of it. So a “lefty” he remained, albeit only on the golf course. The question is: Did it make him a better golfer?
    Mike Weir, like most young boys in Canada, first fell in love with hockey. A natural right-hander, Weir found he could swing a hockey stick more easily with his left hand low. So that’s how he played. In fact, he may well have been encouraged to do so, given that in hockey it’s helpful to have left-handed shooters playing on the left side of the ice, putting southpaws in greater demand.
    When “Weirsy” took up golf later, it only made sense for him to swing from the “wrong” side of the ball – using a partial set of left-handed clubs handed down to him by a family friend. Good thing, too. If none had been available, he may have been forced to turn things around – and who knows where his golf may have led him then. To obscurity? Or to possibly even greater heights? The world will never know.
    The man now known as Sir Bob Charles, the patron saint of left-handed golf, does everything right-handed except “play games requiring two hands.” Turns out that both his parents were excellent golfers, and lefties. That is, his mom was a natural lefty, his father a righty – but they both played golf left-handed. So when young Bob, a natural right-handed, took up the game himself, the clubs he found lying around the house were all left-handed. And that’s how he learned to play.
    Charles’s situation mirrors the challenge routinely faced by young lefties all over the world: You’re a southpaw, and interested in playing golf, but the only clubs you can find to use are right-handed. So you “make do.” But is that actually an advantage?
    While some 15 percent of the population at large is left-handed, only about 10 percent of golfers overall play that way. The worldwide shortage of left-handed equipment (especially in the “olden days”) probably explains why so many natural lefties such as Norman (world #1 for 331 consecutive weeks), Strange (a back-to-back U.S. Open champion), and Miller (U.S. and British Open titles) play golf right-handed. And play it so well.
Yet certain questions remain unanswered: What role, if any did “the big switch” play in the success of these top golfers. Would they, could they, have succeeded as righties? Given the success of these great champions, is a golfer potentially better off learning to play from the opposite side?
    And more to the point: Can a 47-year-old underachieving right-hander fix his lifelong swing flaws and become the golfer he always wanted to be by turning things around and “relearning” the game as a lefty?
    Let’s look at a few of the obstacles such a “hypothetical” golfer – that is to say, that I –would face:
    Habit. Think about how natural your golf swing feels to you. It didn’t get that way overnight, but through many thousands of repetitions. Perhaps over the course of a lifetime. Now think about how unnatural an opposite-handed swing would feel. How long would it take to make the foreign motion feel natural? Maybe it never would. It’s tempting to believe that my bad habits will go away while my good ones carry over. But that’s not likely to happen. With my luck, my touch and feel, meticulously developed over a lifetime of ball-striking, would go out the window while the nearly overwhelming massive bending arc of my tee shots would stick to me like goose poop to Foot Joys.
    Age. According to wisdom handed down through many generations, old dogs and new tricks go together like peanut butter and mayonnaise. Like Rory McIlroy and barber shops. Like Vijay Singh and Chuck E. Cheese’s Pizza Time Theater. Is 47 too old to learn a whole new way of doing things? Is my muscle memory too set in its crotchety old ways?
    Physiology. And that’s not even considering the physical obstacles that come with getting older. My back is not what it used to be. My flexibility (what little I ever had) has gone the way of the hickory shaft. In fact, replacing my rickety spine with a hickory shaft might be an improvement. Plus, it’s a known scientific fact that the little aches and pains everyone develops now and then take longer to go away once you start wanting to go to bed at 9:30.
    Family. I’m pushing 50. I have a son, Jack, who’s 8. A wife, Elizabeth, who’s … forever young. They are very important to me. Is it possible to put in the work that will be required to succeed without them forgetting who I am? My son already tells his friends that all I do is watch golf and read about golf. And sometimes I play golf – hopefully with him. At least he shows signs of learning to love the game as much as I do. Perhaps I can incorporate him into the learning process, take him to the range and par-3 and such. He’d like that! And so would I. But what about the missus? I don’t think she would enjoy tagging along the same way my son would, and I doubt I have enough “marital capital” stored up to carry me through. (Note to self: Start doing more laundry and vacuuming. And dusting … yeah, dusting.)
    What’s the point? Already my idea has been greeted with some skepticism from friends and loved ones – to say nothing of the outright derision dished out by my mortal enemies. They don’t understand why I would want to do this – or doubt that learning to play from the left side would be an effective method of improving my golf game. But that’s not really what it’s about. The point is to try it and see what happens. And to see what I can learn – about the golf swing, left-handedness, myself, and perhaps life – along the way. No matter how good or bad a left-handed golfer I one day become, I believe an adventure awaits down this path.
    Commitment. Is it going to be fun to start over? At what point in the learning process does golf become enjoyable? Such a quest would probably mean giving up right-handed golf completely. Perhaps for a time, but perhaps forever! Progress will likely be slow – will I miss playing decent golf too much to carry this plan to fruition? One reason I consider myself a golfing underachiever is that I’ve never been willing to put in the work (on the range, that is) required to improve the way I’d like. Am I going to be willing and able to stick to my guns and practice hard?
    That last question, if expertly appraised by one of those dudes on “Antiques Roadshow,” would probably produce a value somewhere in the range of $64,000. (At auction.)
    But there’s only one way to find out. So let the quest begin.
    Hogan help me.

More Stricker Whining

2011-01-28T12:26:00.003-06:00

Not Steve Stricker whining ... me whining about Steve not getting enough love!
     I just don't understand why Matt Kuchar (who I love) seems to get so much more buzz for 2010 than Steve Stricker. The latest was in Alan Shipnuk's Mailbag at golf.com. When asked to name the top five players in the world right now (ignoring the official world rankings), he answered Kaymer, McDowell, Westwood, Furyk, and Mickelson/Kuchar (tie).
     Everybody talks about top 10s. Fine. Kuchar had 11 in 26 tournaments (.423), but Stricker had 9 in 19 (.474). Kuchar won the scoring title, but by a whisker over Stricker (69.61 to 69.66). Kuchar won the money title (4,910,477 vs. 4,190,235), but again when you look at it per-tournament, Stricker comes out ahead, 220,500 to 188,900 (rounding off). Stricker (1,697 points) finished well ahead of Kuchar (1,437) in the regular season FedEx Cup standings. Plus, Stricker had two victories in 2010 to Kuchar's one. I'll give the majors to Kuchar, who finished ahead of Stricker in all four, including two top-10s. All in all, it's very close. But overall I'd give Stricker (whose season was shortened by injury) the edge between the two.
   I suppose the disparity is at least in part because Kuchar is younger and his comeback story is fresher. He's an extremely likeable guy who has developed into a very fine player. Stricker's been back at the top for a while now, and if anything is trending (ever so) slightly downward. Kuchar, on the other hand, seems to still be on the rise.
     But they're both great guys, good family men, and fine players. I hope they both have monster years!

(By the way, posting at Whiffling Straits has been erratic lately, to say the least, as I've been concentrating on a book project. But I'll try to pick up the pace a little as the season gets going.)

Inspiration

2010-12-20T18:00:00.001-06:00

Posted without further comment ...

(Hat tip: golfdigest.com, Local Knowledge blog)

Tiger vs. Jack

2010-12-13T18:00:00.003-06:00

Fellow blogger Phil Capelle has a new book out! In Tiger vs. Jack: Golf's Greatest Rivalry, Capelle takes issue with what he calls the "overly simplistic" notion that Tiger will replace Jack as golf's greatest player once he surpasses Jack's total of 18 major professional championships. In his view, "the quality of competition, the rules of the game, equipment, and course conditions are among the ever changing factors that must be weighed when debating who is the best."

Whiffling Straits will post a review of Tiger vs. Jack once we've had a chance to read it. In the meantime, you can learn more or purchase a copy by visiting Phil's website: Capelle on Golf. It is also available here at amazon.com.

A Visit with Sir Bob Charles

2010-11-29T21:45:00.001-06:00

Over the weekend, Sir Bob Charles, the first left-handed golfer to ever win a major professional championship, the 1963 Open Championship, became the first person inducted into the New Zealand Golf Hall of Fame. The new hall of fame was inaugurated in honor of the 100th anniversary of New Zealand Golf.

We here at Whiffling Straits are intrigued by Sir Bob – and not just because he won the first major championship contended in my lifetime. It's also because he's not really a "left-hander." He's a natural righty who plays golf, as he prefers to call it, "backhanded," standing on the right side of the ball and hitting to his right. Recently, we had the honor of speaking to Sir Bob in his native New Zealand – about his backhanded approach to golf and his big win in July 1963.

(Image: Condon/Getty Images, via pgatour.com)

Whiffling Straits: How did you come to be a right-handed person who plays golf left-handed?
Bob Charles: Well, I’m just doing something that comes naturally. It’s instinctive for me to grip with one hand, to pick things up, grip anything with my right hand. But when it comes to putting two hands on anything, I automatically put the left hand below the right hand. For example, if I pick up a rifle, I put the left hand belowthe right hand. If I pick up a pool cue, I put the left hand below the right hand. A spade, an axe, everything I do with two hands, I put the left below the right. And swing obviously … with an axe I swing it over my left shoulder, a rake … you know, that’s just natural.

WS: I had read in Sports Illustrated that your parents were both golfers and lefties, and that’s how you came across your first set of left-handed clubs, is that correct?
BC: Well, yes, that’s correct. Actually my mother started out as a right-handed golfer and she switched to becoming a left-handed golfer. My father is the same as me. He’s right-handed with one hand, but with two hands he puts the left hand below the right.

WS: Was it because of them that you started playing left-handed?
BC: Why did I start playing golf standing on the right side of the ball? It felt the most natural way to me. I play all ball games. I’m fascinated with all ball games. I’ve got my own tennis court here on the farm, I’ve got my own pool table in the house, I have a ping pong table, so … my father was a very good sportsman, and had a good eye, instinct for ball games. He was just playing what was natural for him. He played cricket, he was a good cricketer. He bowled right-handed, batted left. If you use baseball as an example, he and I both would have been right-handed pitchers and left-handed batters.

WS: Do you think there’s an advantage for a right-handed person to turn things around and play left-handed golf?
BC: I think a lot depends on whether you’re left-eyed or right-eyed. You see, I don’t consider myself a left-handed golfer. I’m a back-hander. I prefer to use backhand, I play a double-handed backhand. I stand on the right side of the ball, I hit the ball on the right side of the clubface and I’m hitting to my right. Now when I’m lining up a putt, I’m looking at the hole and the ball with my strong right eye. So, I’ve got a feeling … well, it’s not a feeling. I’ve got a theory I suppose is the best way of describing it. If you’re left-eyed you should be a right-handed putter, if you’re right-eyed you should be a left-handed putter. I think you get a better perception, better depth perception. If I’m looking to my right, to my strong side, visually I get a better picture looking right than looking left.

WS: What do you remember most about that (British Open) victory?
BC:There’s a lot of things. Let’s put it in context, we’re going back how many years? Well, 47 years, aren’t we? Of course, the field: the best players of the day were there. Nicklaus was there, Palmer was there, Player was there, Peter Thompson was there, Kei Nagle. They were the leading players of the day. I had won at Houston just the month before, so I arrived there full of confidence, having won my first tour event in the United States. So in effect, those five players I mentioned were probably the only ones I had to beat.
     Nowadays of course things are quite different. What I’m saying is, the quality was there but there was no great depth to the field. Whereas today, instead of just five players, you’ve got 50 players to beat. So, as a fact, [I arrived] full of confidence, I had a great week. Putted particularly well. And of course the 36-hole final [playoff] with Phil Rogers was a little bit of an endurance contest, as you can imagine, playing 72 holes in two days. And I think I was the fitter of the two. Then, Phil Rogers would never consider himself to be one of the fittest people in the world. And my putting continued through the final and I think I won by, what was it, seven shots.

WS: Actually, it was eight! And Sports Illustrated calls Phil Rogers “plump.” And you "lean," so it must have been a bit of a contrast there. How did winning that change your life? BC: Well … it opened a lot of doors for me. And of course I had signed up with Mark McCormack [founder of International Management Group (IMG)] and IMG the year before, in 1962, so I was with the best in the business. And of course, winning a major, it’s meaningful even to this day. Much more meaningful than winning a half-dozen Houston Opens!

WS: You worked in a bank before turning professional. What was your path to becoming a pro golfer?BC: In 1954 I won the New Zealand Open as an 18-year-old amateur. That same year, I started subscribing to Golf World, the weekly publication. And I read about the U.S. Tour and the leading players of the day. So in 1958, a good close friend, golfing friend, here in Christchurch, offered me a trip of a lifetime, which was to join he and his wife on a trip around the world. And I immediately wrote a letter to Clifford Roberts at Augusta National, to see if I could get an invitation to the Masters. Clifford Roberts wrote back and kindly invited me. So that was the first major I ever played in, was the Masters. This was 1958, I’d already played in the Phoenix Open, I’d played in the St. Petersburg Open, so I’d played in two professional tournaments. And mind you, I’m still an amateur, right? Played in the Masters, then I went on to Great Britain, played in the British Amateur, played in the British Open … so in 1958 I had this trip around the world, and played in three of the majors.
     I played against some of the best players in the world. And I played on some of the best golf courses in the world. The Open that year was at Royal Lytham and St. Anne’s which is where I won [the British Open] five years later. So I had a taste of traveling the world as a touring golfer. I was only a touring amateur, but I had an insight into what the life of a touring professional was. And two years later I came back to New Zealand. Later that year … I played in the inaugural Eisenhower World Team Championship at St. Andrews, which New Zeland was leading with a round to go. But it was won by Australia; they beat the US in a playoff.
     In 1959 I went to South Africa with a New Zealand team. In 1960 I played in the second Eisenhower World Team Championship, which was at Merion in Philadelphia, where we first saw Jack Nicklaus play. He won the individual title and the U.S. ran away with victory in that one. That was 1960. When I came back from Merion in 1960 I turned pro within a month, in October 1960.

WS: What do you think your greatest strengths are as a golfer?
BC: Well, I think my short game, particularly my putting. I was never a good bunker player, but I was good from, say, 100 yards in. Short irons, getting it up and down around the greens – with the exception of bunker play. But my putting was my obvious strength.

WS: Do you credit the dominant eye, the back-handed swing … do you think that helps more in the short game than the long game?
BC: Well, I don’t know … I hesitate answering that. The one thing you must remember is I was never a power player. For example, back in the 1968, '69, when I won the Canadian Open, I’ve got the stats for that period; and the leading driving distance was Jack Nicklaus at 275 yards. And I was 245. So I was always 30 yards behind Jack Nicklaus. I was probably 20-25 yards behind Arnold Palmer, and probably 5 or ten yards behind Gary Player. So not being a long ball hitter or a power player, I had to rely on a good short game. And of course, right from day one I had a reputation of being a good putter. And whether that was because of, as I say, my dominant right eye, I don’t know.

WS: The Sports Illustrated article about your British Open win talks a lot about your demeanor. They use words like “solemn” to describe you on the course. Is that another strength?
BC: Well, I can only concentrate on one thing at a time. So I have pretty good focus on what I’m doing. I can be putting on a green and a train might go by or a plane fly overhead, I wouldn’t hear them. I’m concentrating so much on the, on what I’m endeavoring to do, I have a great ability to shut out everything else around me. So that is … I’m pretty placid, I don’t have extreme highs, I don’t have any lows at all. I’ve always been a pretty optimistic, I never have any negative thoughts, I’m always positive, and I have a fairly, a peaceful, placid … I never get excited about anything.

WS: In 2007 you became the oldest golfer to make a cut on the European tour, and have made a reputation playing well as a senior. [For instance, in an exhibition associated with the Hall of Fame induction, Sir Bob shot a stellar 69 – five shots below his age!] To what do you attribute your longevity?
BC: Well, again, good health. I’ve been … I’ve … well, in a way Gary Player has been somewhat of an influence in my career. He got me into jogging in 1972, but I didn’t stay in that very long. But … I don’t carry out his philosophies to the extreme. I believe in moderation. And fitness, I don’t go overboard, I try to stay as fit as I can. Food, I’m into health foods and a healthy lifestyle, I suppose. Throughout my career I was basically injury-free. I did have an elbow problem once, a back problem … in fact I had to withdraw from an Open Championship with Sandy Lyle, one at St. George’s, about eight holes from home, when I was doing well. But those things have come and gone very quickly. I haven’t had any long-standing injuries.

WS: Thank you so much for your time today.
BC: A pleasure. Anytime.

In addition to his 1963 Open Championship victory, Charles, won six times on the PGA Tour, four times on the European Tour, eight times on the PGA Tour of Australasia, 23 times on the U.S. Senior Tour (now known as the Champions Tour), and 26 other times around the world. He is widely known as one of the best putters of all time. He was named Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 1999 and inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame in 2008. Today he lives on a farm in New Zealand with Verity, his wife of 48 years.

The Year in Pictures

2010-11-19T18:05:00.001-06:00

How cool is this photo?

As someone who loves photography, I really enjoyed browsing the "2010 TOUR Photos of the Year" galleries at pgatour.com. The editors asked their three staff photographers to each pick their favorite 10 photos from the 2010 season. The photo above of Arnie, Jack, and Gary is by Chris Condon, taken at the Big 3 fund-raiser for the Mountain Mission Kids at the Olde Farm Golf Club on June 8.
"These guys don't get together very often and it was a pleasure to be a part of this event that raised a record amount of money for charity," Condon comments.
You can view the rest of the pictures, along with comments from the photographers, from all three galleries (including those of photographers Stan Badz and Caryn Levy) here.

Mike Small is Big Time

2010-11-08T22:17:00.004-06:00

Steve Stricker says his former teammate Mike Small is doing an "unbelievable" job as coach of the Fighting Illini men's golf team. If Steve says it, it must be so – and the stats back him up. Small's Illini, the two-time defending Big Ten Champs, finished the fall season ranked 9th in the country in the Golf World/Nike Coaches Poll and claim the reigning NCAA men's individual champion and Big Ten Player of the Year, Scott Langley, among their ranks. In 2010, Small was named Big Ten Coach of the Year for the third time (2002, 2009).

On the course, Small is two-time defending champ at the PGA Professional National Championship – he's won the tournament a record-tying three times overall. He's also won a remarkable nine titles at the Illinois PGA, including the last eight straight.

That's why the staff here at Whiffling Straits was so honored to have spoken recently with Small about playing, coaching, and what the future holds, both for him and for his exciting Fighting Illini team.

UPDATE: Coach Small made the cut on the number this week at the Children's Miracle Network Classic at Disney World, the final official event of the 2010 PGA Tour season. He shot a 2-under 70 on Thursday and followed that up with a bogey-free 71 on Friday. He held fairly steady on the weekend, shooting 71-74 to finish at 2-under for the week in a tie for 65th place. Nice job, Coach!

(Image: Small with his 2010 PGA Professional National Championship Trophy. Montana Pritchard/The PGA of America.)

Whiffling Straits: Is it unusual for a college coach to play as much competitive golf as you do?
Mike Small: I don’t think anybody does it to my level. A lot of [college coaches] played in the past, on tour, but they seem not to have success once they start coaching. When I started coaching, I didn’t think I’d be playing this well or this much. So I didn’t really plan on it. But the way I’ve played, it just kind of evolved.

WS: What kind of challenges does that present?
MS: It actually presents a lot of them. It makes things really confusing. But I think there are a lot of positives that come out of it that outweigh the negatives. The negatives are, obviously, family time, away from home, I’m gone a lot. Coaching is my number one gig, my full-time thing, that’s what everything kind of revolves around. But at the same time, playing at my level, or trying to play, is an advantage to our program. It’s a niche that we have that kind of helps separate ourselves from other schools. I tell people we don’t have the ocean, we don’t have the [warm] weather, that a lot of other programs have … but every program has to kind of have a niche, a fit. And we run our program, approach our program from a player’s perspective, somebody who’s still playing. [Because] all these kids aspire to play on tour someday.
     The positives behind it: being out there and still being in the game, competitively, learning the new stuff that’s on the cutting edge in golf when you’re on the PGA tour, playing in events, equipment-wise. I’m bringing information and knowledge back to the players that most coaches get second-hand. So to get that first-hand is always nice and it helps our development.
     I always do my schedule around my coaching, but I have a very understanding AD – and my players are very understanding; they get a kick out of it. So when conflicts do arise, I have to make the decision based on what’s happening. But if we’re playing in a tournament that’s not as big or as prominent, or I can be gone when I need to play in a tour event, I usually can go. But that doesn’t happen very often at all. I try to have coaching be number one and playing be number two. And that’s the way I schedule my time professionally.
      But with the family, and being gone a lot, it is tough. But they get a lot of advantages, too, being a coach at a major university, and also being able to play on tour. Like this next week we’re going to Disney World for the tournament. The whole family is going. So it will be fun to go down there and spend some time, kind of relive the old days of playing, and then our fall season is done. Where it gets tricky is with recruiting. Because coaches recruit every day, all day, almost. And I do that on the road, juggle two things at once.
     But to wrap this whole answer up, personally I think it makes me better at both. Because if you do something all the time, 100% of the time, you get a little stale and burn out on it. I think coaching, if I’m coaching all the time with the guys, all spring, and I know I have some tour events coming up, or the PGA of America event coming up, in early summer, it kind of gives you something to look forward to and it gives you a fresh clear picture … you don’t get stale. There’s no repetitive stuff, there’s always something to look forward to, and vice versa. When I’m out playing for a week or two, I’m always looking forward to coming back and talking to the guys and see how they’re doing, and see what we can do with their game. I think my patience is better, I think I’m fresher at what I do with both of them. I’m not on edge or stressed out with just one job.

WS: Does it help you feel like one of the guys?
MS: Yeah, I think so. Normally I only play about four or five events a year. So I don’t really play a lot of tournaments, but I space them out so I stay involved. But it’s weird, the last 7, 8, 9 years, I’ve played so well in the PGA of America events, and the Illinois events, the Illinois Open, the Illinois PGA, I’ve been winning them. And it’s always in the news, and people are reading that and thinking I’m always playing. But I’m really not. I play four or five times a year.
Now this year I’ve played more. And next year I’ll play more. And like in 2006, I played more, because when I won the National Club Professional Championship – or the PGA Professional National Championship, what it’s called now, the PPNC – I get all those exemptions the following year. So I’ll play 11 or 12 events in those years, and this coming year, because of the exemptions. I’ve been fortunate to play well and get some media attention, so it seems like I’m playing a lot.

WS: Is it tough to keep your game sharp, to find time to practice?
MS: Yes. It’s getting harder and harder. I’m getting older. My kids are at an age now there are more things to do with them at night, school, and their activities. And yes, finding time to practice the last few years has gotten tougher.

WS: At this level of the college game, what do you primarily work on with your players?
MS: It’s probably more mental game, course management, scoring – scoring attitude and aptitude they have to have. But we’ll work individually on their golf swings if we need to. But if you’re a top 20 team in the country and you’re recruiting kids where you need to build golf swings, you’re recruiting the wrong ones. At this level … major college golf is not a golf academy. We need to teach these kids how to be players. And how to be tournament players and how to score and deliver a score. The golf swing is obviously a portion of that, but they should hopefully have good fundamentals when they come here.

What we spend a lot of time on is ball flight, distance control, short game, getting command of our short game, increasing the number of shots they have. Most of them have five or six different shot around the green when they come in, if that many. You need to have 20-25 to be good. We [work on] how to handle course conditions, the mental approach to the game, mental toughness, mental competence, how to handle different situations. And I think that’s where we tie it all together.

WS: Do players at this level generally have their own swing coaches back home?
MS: A lot of them do, some don’t. But I’m involved even if they do have swing coaches. I’m involved to the extent where I’m the eyes and ears here. I don’t want them to stop working with their coaches if they’ve had success with them; that would be foolish on my part. I’m not one of those coaches who has a big ego or an attitude where [I say], “You come work for me. You’re playing for me and you need to work with me.” But their game and their mental state and their emotional state and their confidence is the most important thing we can infuse. So, they may have their own coaches, but I don’t get in the middle of that unless I’m invited in. But the kids that don’t have coaches, yes I work with them.

WS: You have an “off-season” coming up – do your players stay pretty active? I know Illinois has a new practice facility …
MS: Yes, it’s been there four years, it’s been great. This is our fourth winter coming up, it’s been fabulous.
      It’s up to them. NCAA rules preclude us from working a lot in the offseason. We can’t make them work, they have to get back to class and study, but we can work a couple hours a week with them individually. And it’s up to them to make that call. But a lot of them they still do practice and keep their heads in the game at that facility.

WS: How big of an advantage do the warm weather schools have?
MS: Well, golf is an outdoor sport. You can play tennis inside in the winter if you have to, play matches, play tournaments. And most sports you can do it inside, but golf you can’t. It’s a game you can’t play in the winter. And we’re at a disadvantage there. But if you look at the players who have had success on the PGA tour, and players that have had success in the majors, a lot of them played in the north, and in the Big Ten. So I don’t think it’s an end all that you have to be in warm weather to be great. I don’t think that at all. I think players like to take a break; they like to take a little bit and get away from it in the wintertime.
      At the same time, the southern schools compete earlier … but we’re flying down there back and forth too, so we don’t really look at that as a disadvantage. In part because the tournaments that count, the really big championships, happen in April, May, and June. By then we’re ready to go. And we have the ability now that we can actually get better in the winter anyway, in a static, controlled environment, which is important.

WS: Tell me a little about the new facility …
MS: It keeps us in the game all winter long. Back in the day when we didn’t have that, we would hit balls into a net that was ten feet from us, and then go home and watch TV. And now we’re in an all-inclusive facility – you can find out more about it online [Demirjian Indoor Golf Facility]. It’s fabulous, you could spend all day in there if you wanted to. You can practice almost every shot in golf. Hit balls inside out and see it fly, practice putting inside. It has the ability to … it keeps our head in the game, it builds camaraderie, it builds a nice atmosphere for our team to be around there, a competitive atmosphere. And it gives us a chance to continue to get better.
      As evidence, the first year we had that thing open, our first two events in February, we shot lower scores in February than our fall averages. So it shows that we got better over the winter. And it’s been that way most every year. Scott Langley’s short game has evolved so much, primarily because of that building. In the winter he can practice his short game, like I said in a controlled, static environment, where you can work on your short game, work on your technique all winter long.

WS: What are you looking forward to in the spring? You’re ranked number 9 I think right now …?
MS: The coaches have us ninth, the computers have us seventh and eighth, so we’re right in there. It’s going to be good. It’s always tough to repeat, it’s always tough to three-peat, but I think we can do it. I think we may be a better team now than we have been. I’m not really sure. This winter’s going to go a long way to proving that, and getting us ready for the spring.
I know there are two or three Big Ten teams that are really coming on, really playing well, so it’s going to be a bit more difficult this year. But I tell my guys, in the fall you try to win tournaments, in the spring you try to win championships. And we have a lot to play for.

WS: Scott Langley is a guy getting a lot of press, Luke Guthrie had a big win in Columbus … who else should we be keeping an eye on in the spring?
MS: [Senior] Chris DeForest last year finished as the Les Bolstad Award winner, which is the best stroke average in the Big Ten, he won that last year. He was rated the second best player in the Big Ten. So last year in the spring season I had the one, two, and four players in the conference. This year we’re looking at about the same, we have three of the top five, I would think, in the conference. Those guys gotta show up and play.
      And then you have Thomas Pieters, a freshman from Belgium, and you have Mason Jacobs, a sophomore from southern Illinois [Metropolis]. Those guys are going to have to get better and improve, and if they can we can be better than last year. There’s still some unfinished business. We’ve won a lot of tournaments, and we’ve been ranked in the top 10 or 12 for about three years now. But we really haven’t played that well in the [NCAA] finals yet. We finished something like 18th, 17th, and 20th the last three years. We have to play better than that. There’s a lot to improve, a lot to strive for.

WS: Any particular goals on the national level?
MS: Yeah, we want to continue to stay highly ranked, we want to continue to get better every day, that’s kind of our goal. And we want to contend for a national championship. And I think once you get to the national finals, anything can happen. We’ve been fortunate enough to do that the last three years, and haven’t really finished it off. Scott played well last year, won the whole national championship. Our team kind of had a struggle that week. So we have some unfinished business in the national championship.

WS: Finally, as far as your future is concerned … you're 44 – is it too early to start thinking about the senior tour, the Champions Tour, is that something you’re looking forward to?
MS: People ask me that all the time! But who knows what my body’s going to be like five years from now, when I’m really seriously considering it. If I can stay in shape and keep my body young, I don’t know why I wouldn’t try it. I know my mind is young. Being around these kids it stays young. That’s one of the big assets to the job, you don’t feel like you’re getting old. Well, [actually] you do.
      And it’s one of those things where … I’m just living for today, trying to keep my game in gear for next year, for these events. I didn’t play as well as I’d have liked this summer. I played well like three times, four times. I struggled like five or six. So there are some issues I have to get through, figure out. But I got business here to take care of right now. I want to help these guys get as good as they can. And I want to continue to play every year, make some extra money, and keep my hand in the game competitively. So yes, that’s in the back of my mind, but who knows what that’s going to be like five years from now.

WS: Last question: What’s Justin Timberlake really like?
MS: You know, I only just said “hi” to him briefly walking by, I didn’t talk to him [at the Justin Timberlake Shriners Hospitals for Children Open]. But he was hitting balls on the practice range during the practice rounds. He seemed like a really class guy. He gives a lot of his time and energy to good causes. I know he likes golf a lot. And just watching him interact with the players and be the host of the tournament was really impressive to me, and I’ve kind of become a fan.

Look for the Fighting Illini Men's golf team to open their spring season February 11-12 at the Big Ten Match Play in Coral Springs, Florida.

Happy Birthday, Gary!

2010-11-01T12:30:00.001-05:00

Gary Player turns 75 today. Earlier this year, I predicted:

Gary Player, the Jack LaLanne Perry Como of professional golf, will celebrate his 75th birthday on November 1 with a 40th anniversary release of his album, "Gary Player Sings."

As far as I know, this is not going to happen. In the absence of a Gary Player serenade, however, here's a link to an interview at golf.com, which includes this enlightening snippet about Martin Kaymer:

"I like his manner, and the way he shaves every day."

Yes, Gary Player is unique, a man with his own way of thinking and of doing things. After I made the above prediction, I posted this reflection on "The Legend that is Gary Player." An excerpt:

I find Player absolutely fascinating. He has an inspiring backstory, having grown up dirt poor in South Africa, where his father was a miner. His mother died when he was 8. He's gotten where he is today by working harder than anybody in the history of the game (even Hogan, by my estimation), both on and off the course. The winner of nine (yes, nine!) major championships, he was an amazing player, even as he labored in the shadow of Palmer and Nicklaus. Because of the "golden era" in which he played, I think he sometimes doesn't get enough credit today for what he accomplished on the course. Who knows how many majors he would have won had he peaked in, say, the 1980s?

That's two more majors than Arnie! Yet, who comes more readily to mind as one of the greatest players of all time? Probably Palmer over Player – a common perception that's really not supported by their respective records.
So happy birthday, Gary! May your stature one day grow as large in the minds of fans as it already is in your own!

More Men in the Mirror

2010-10-28T18:00:00.003-05:00

Add Bob Charles, David Graham, Johnny Miller, and Nick Price, to the list of major championship winners who play golf from the "opposite" side. That makes eight total that I've learned about. There must be more -- right?

Natural Righties Who Play Lefty
Bob Charles (1963 Open Championship)
Mike Weir (2003 Masters)
Phil Mickelson (2004, '06, '10 Masters; 2005 PGA Championship)

Natural Lefties Who Play Righty
Johnny Miller (1973 U.S. Open; 1976 Open Championship)
David Graham (1979 PGA Championship; 1981 U.S. Open)
Greg Norman (1986, '93 Open Championship)
Curtis Strange (1988, '89 U.S. Open)
Nick Price (1992, '94 PGA Championship; 1994 Open Championship)

(Image: AP via espn.com)

UPDATE: According to this article, Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan (!!) were also natural lefties who swung righty.

Unbelievable

2010-10-25T12:30:00.002-05:00

One-Armed Wonders

2010-10-21T18:00:00.007-05:00

So here's an interesting twist on the left- vs. right-hand debate. It seems there are a couple of organizations that cater to one-armed golfers. The "domestic" version is the North American One-Armed Golfer Association (NAOAGA); their European counterpart is the Society of One Armed Golfers. In addition to sponsoring various championships, the two organizations stage a biennial Ryder Cup-style competition called the Fightmaster Cup. Alas, much like their two-armed counterparts, the Europeans won the 2010 match, which was also held in Wales, by a score of 16-12.

Here's a video of the top American player, 47-year-old Bobby Baca, in action:

What I find interesting, in perusing photos on the NAOAGA website, is that while most of the golfers seem to swing the club in a "forehand" style, a number of them are "backhanders." I'd be very curious to learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and why each golfer chose to swing the way he does.
What do you think? Would forehand or backhand be a better way to go? Personally, it certainly seems like it would be easier to go forehand – but I wonder what the advantages to backhand would be.

A Golf Workout Whiffle

2010-10-18T14:17:00.002-05:00

As far as I know, Ben Crane has never been one to make a lot of noise on tour – except for winning a couple tournaments while playing frustratingly slow. So I can't say if this is "out of character" for him – though it is surprising, and very funny ...

UPDATE: For a little more background on the video, click HERE.

Men in the Mirror

2010-10-11T19:00:00.014-05:00

Four-time major winner and perennial world #2 Phil “Lefty” Mickelson is right-handed. So is 2003 Masters champion Mike Weir. And so, for that matter, is tennis great Rafael Nadal. Yet each of these guys has succeeded wildly at their respective sports playing from the sinister side.
What’s up with that?

Mike Weir, being from Canada, has a different story. Like most young boys in the Great White North, Weir’s first love was hockey. A natural right-hander, Weir found he could swing a hockey stick more easily with his left hand low. So that’s how he played. It probably didn’t hurt that in hockey it’s helpful to have left-handed shooters playing on the left side of the ice [hockey players, am I right in this?], putting left-handed players in greater demand.

    When “Weirsy” took up golf later, it only made sense for him to swing from the “wrong” side of the ball – using a partial set of left-handed clubs handed down to him by a family friend. Good thing, too. If none had been available, he may have been forced to turn things around – and who knows where his golf may have led him then. To obscurity? Or to possibly even greater heights? The world will never know.

    “Switch-hitting” the other way (lefties playing righty) is more common still. From what I've read, some 15 percent of the population at large is left-handed, only about 10 of golfers overall play that way. This is not likely due, however, to thinking they’ll have an advantage that way; it’s simply because there are a lot more right-handed clubs sitting around in basements and garages. Often, lefty boys and girls are forced to learn on whatever equipment they can find – which far more often than not is right-handed.
    This may explain why natural lefties Greg Norman (world #1 for 331 weeks) and Curtis Strange (a back-to-back U.S. Open champion) play right-handed. (The plot thickens!)

     So certain questions remain unanswered: What role, if any did “the big switch” play in the success of Mickelson and Weir? (Or Norman and Strange, on the other hand.) Would they, could they, have succeeded as righties? Given he success of these four great champions, is a golfer potentially better off learning to play from the opposite side?
     What do YOU think? Is there a potential advantage to be had playing from the opposite side? And if so, would it have to be learned from the start – or could an old dog potentially learn this new trick?
     Sound off in the comments section!

UPDATE: Friend of Whiffling Straits the Armchair Golf Blog has published a version of this post HERE.

A Secretariat Whiffle

2010-09-29T18:00:00.001-05:00

I can't wait to see this movie:

I was not quite 10 years old in 1973 when Secretariat captivated the country's imagination. I had no idea, of course, of the historical significance I was witnessing, but how could a not-quite-10-year-old boy who loved sports and animals not be thrilled by seeing a horse win the biggest race of his life by 31 lengths? Secretariat's Triple Crown triumph that year – his amazing Belmont Stakes victory in particular – was one of the most dominating performances in sports history. He remains one of my great sports heroes.
What could compare -- maybe a 24-year-old golfer winning the U.S. Open by 15 at Pebble Beach?
By the way, in case you're wondering, the opening lines in the trailer posted above are derived from chapter 39 of the Book of Job, verses 19-25 (I'm just sayin'):

Do you give the horse his strength
       or clothe his neck with a flowing mane?
Do you make him leap like a locust,
       striking terror with his proud snorting?
He paws fiercely, rejoicing in his strength,
       and charges into the fray.
He laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
       he does not shy away from the sword.
The quiver rattles against his side,
       along with the flashing spear and lance.
In frenzied excitement he eats up the ground;
       he cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
At the blast of the trumpet he snorts, 'Aha!'
       He catches the scent of battle from afar,
       the shout of commanders and the battle cry.

I Don't Understand ...

2010-09-23T12:30:00.001-05:00

... why Steve Stricker is not getting more talk for Player of the Year. For instance, Cameron Moffit, Senior Writer at Golf magazine, writes this today over at golf.com:

A lot of people could make a case for POY with a victory, most notably Barclays winner and FedEx points leader Matt Kuchar; BMW winner Dustin Johnson, who is second in FedEx points; newly minted Hall of Famer Ernie Els and Jim Furyk, who have two Tour victories apiece this season but have been relatively quiet lately.

No mention of Stricker at all? Really? Yes, yes, I know I'm hopelessly biased. But it's easy to make the case on paper (or in pixels). I agree that if Kuchar or any of the above two-time winners emerges victorious at East Lake in the Tour Championship this weekend, they will likely lay claim to POY honors. But Stricker also has two twins. Granted, one was a second-tier event, the John Deere. But it still counts. And even if you wanted to only call it a "half-victory," adding the Tour Championship would put him at 2.5 wins, best on Tour.
     Much of the talk surrounding Kuchar involves his consistency, as evidenced by all his top-10 finishes. He has 11 in 24 events to lead that category. But Stricker is close behind with 9 – in just 18 events. So Stricker's top-10 "average" is actually a little better: 50% to 45.8% (Stricker played fewer events this year due to a shoulder injury).
     Yes, Kuchar leads the money list, with $4,753,727 to Stricker's $4,062,735 (#4). But again, with 24 events to Stricker's 18. Stricker leads in average money per event with $225,707.50 to Kuchar's $198,071.89. Again, which looks more "consistent" to you? And if Stricker wins (again, my case is all premised on him winning this week) he would certainly jump to #2, and could possibly even pass Kuchar (I think) if he stumbles badly.
   Finally, Kuchar and Stricker are in a virtual dead heat for the Vardon Trophy, which goes to the lowest (adjusted) stroke average. Kuchar sits narrowly on top with a 69.57 average; Stricker is within a grass clipping at 69.58. Whoever beats the other this weekend will almost certainly take the lead in this category.
   (Dustin Johnson probably has the most compelling case after these two, given his two victories, current #2 position on the money list, and two memorable performances in majors. He'd get my vote if Kuchar doesn't win this weekend and no one gets to three victories. And Kuchar I think has a wonderful case for Comeback Player of the Year. In 2007 he finished 115th on the money list. In 2008, 70th. In 2009, 24th. And this year, he currently sits at #1. That's quite a remarkable improvement – perhaps a little too gradual to capture the attention of voters, but I feel it's deserving, nonetheless.)
     There you have it: an iron-clad case for Stricker as the 2010 PGA Tour Player of the Year – IF he wins this week. So why does no one seem to be talking about him in that context? I just don't know. Maybe it's just that no one wants to see him fill the FedEx cup with tears of joy.

Tap-Ins

2010-09-22T21:04:00.002-05:00

A few hurried, back-handed stabs at items that have caught my attention in the golfing world ...

The Best Swing on Tour. Over at golf.com, Golf magazine's panel of "Top 100 Teachers" have come up with a list of seven of the "best" golf swings on tour, based on different individual components. Who did they decide has the "Best Overall Swing"? You'll never guess. Oh, wait ... you probably already have.

Jack is ... Jack. A really nice, in-depth look at the enduring legacy of Jack Nicklaus by Jaimie Diaz over at golfdigest.com. A brief excerpt:

Nicklaus and Woods have been compared every which way, from driver through putter and beyond, with the sum total long considered almost a wash. But the potential for major life mistakes that seemed moot in two people so driven and organized has suddenly become the most important element of all. Nicklaus' steady conservatism, which on the course might have begun to seem quaint and even limiting in contrast to Woods' bolder style, has become the potential off-the-course difference-maker. As Nicklaus sits in the clubhouse, an early finisher watching the recklessness that has cost Woods the lead, the score Jack posted is looking better.

The Ryder Cup Runneth Over ... with Christians, it seems. A few people have noticed that three of the four captain's picks by Corey Pavin, a born-again Christian, are regulars at the Tour's weekly Bible study – as are a few who earned their way on (not to mention some of Pavin's assistant captains). Is there a holy conspiracy afoot? Probably not, posits Wall Street Journal writer John Paul Newport in his weekly Golf Journal column.

Title Defense – Failed! Last weekend the Whiffler attempted to defend his title at the annual White Lake Classic in Michigan. No blood clots this year, but a lingering hamstring injury – the result of a freak soccer-coaching accident several weeks ago (it's for the CHILDREN!) – probably helped ... uh, hamstring my efforts to repeat. To prepare (since I hadn't swung a club since the accident), I'd been repeatedly visualizing the 6-iron I hit a few years back to get just inside Steve Stricker's shot at the "beat the pro" par-3 hole at a charity golf outing. (What? I never mentioned that before? Huh. For one brief, shining moment, I bettered the best swing on Tour!)
Alas, all that visualizing wasn't enough – though I did hit one of the best six-irons of my life, to about five feet, for a birdie on the 18th hole of the warm-up round. The shot helped cap an amazing back-nine comeback by Team Butt Hutt to secure a free dinner that night. Victory never tasted so succulent as the ribeye steak I gorged on by Lake Michigan.
But congratulations to Mike "Scruffy" "Landfill" "Homer" "Skipper" Neuses (below, with arms crossed) for his impressive victory in the main event the next day.

UPDATE: In response to Chery's comment below, here are Scruffy/Serbo, Zim (the Whiffler), the Glacier, Keith, and Little Tommy.

One more time ...

Stricker On the No-bogey Train

2010-09-06T10:58:00.002-05:00

Going into Monday's final round at the Deutsche Bank Championship, defending champ Steve Stricker has gone 72 holes without posting a bogey or worse on his scorecard. This includes 54 holes at the Deutsche Bank and the final round of the Barclay's. The last person to win a PGA tournament without a bogey was Lee Trevino at the 1974 Greater New Orleans Open. (Image: Getty Images via telegraph.co.uk)

Funny thing is, Steve Stricker isn't leading: he's four strokes off the pace in a tie for fourth, behind leader Jason Day at -17.

It's tempting to say that Stricker's style of play is too conservative, that's he's not making bogeys, but not making enough birdies, either. But Stricker has shown many times that he's more than capable of going low, especially on a soft course such as the players are seeing at the Deutsche. This is the man who shot 60 at the John Deere this year (to Paul Goydos's 59), and holds the PGA Tour scoring record for 72 holes, at -33 in the 2009 Bob Hope Classic. (Unfortunately for Steve, the Bob Hope is a five-round tournament, and he lost his lead that year in the final round, but the record is still official.)

Don't be surprised if Steve starts making more putts today and puts some pressure on the leaders. I'd love for Steve to win, of course. But as a fan of "quirky" statistics, I wouldn't be too disappointed if Steve continues is bogey-free streak today but comes up a stroke or two short of victory. Then you could add a "bogey-free runner-up" status to his back-to-back Comeback Player of the Year awards.

UPDATE: Well, there's your jinx. Less than an hour after I posted this, Stricker bogeyed the first hole of the final round – from 124 yards out in the fairway, no less. Hopefully, if he was thinking about it, he's not anymore!

A Gong Shot Whiffle

2010-08-26T12:30:00.003-05:00

This is pretty cool. I don't think it's faked, but I'd wager there were many, many more misses than they show in this clip!!

Atwal vs. Van de Velde

2010-08-24T18:00:00.004-05:00

Here's something to ponder ...

At Sunday's final round of the Wyndham Resorts Championship, India's Arjun Atwal (a Monday qualifier!) faced a difficult approach to 18 while holding a one-stroke lead. He had a slightly downhill lie in the left rough, some 189 yards from the pin. What's the right play? At golf.com, Mitchell Spearman, a "Golf Magazine Top 100 Instructor," describes Atwal's thought process and subsequent shot selection:

A 5-iron was plenty of club to reach the flag, but Arjun knew that if he mishit the shot even a little, the ball would likely wobble into one of the gaping front greenside bunkers and he'd have a 30-yard sand shot. Instead, Arjun hit his rescue club, knowing the ball would fly past the green and settle near a grandstand surrounding the green on all sides. Arjun knew that no matter where the ball landed, he'd almost surely get a free drop by the green, and that would leave him a chance to make a simple chip and putt for par and the victory.

Atwal then did "exactly that," made par and won the tournament. Spearman called it "one of the savviest and best decisions of the year by any player." (Image: Atwal hits his approach at 18. Hunter Martin/Getty Images, via golf.com.)

I say, "great!" Congratulations to Atwal on some savvy course management and stellar play. But I couldn't help but be reminded of a similar situation faced by one Jean Van de Valde 11 years ago at the British Open.

You probably know the story; it's one of the most famous "bone-headed" plays in golf history. Standing on the 18th tee at Carnoustie on Sunday with a 3-stroke lead, Van de Velde pulled a driver – a club he'd been hitting fabulously all week – at the long par-4 and hit it way right. Fortunately for him, the ball was so far off-line he ended up with a good lie in the next fairway – but was still a long way from the green. What's the right play?

(A thought on the driver selection: A lot of commentators lambasted Van de Velde, especially in hindsight, for not hitting something "safer" off the tee. But in a pressure situation like that, a strong argument can be made for sticking with what's been working (dance with the girl who brung you, you might say). If he had pulled a fairway wood or long iron, and sprayed it into the burn, he probably would have been criticized for that!)

People seem willing to "forgive" him hitting the driver, but the second shot is where most consider the bone-headedness to have begun in earnest. Rather than take a short or mid-iron and lay up in the fairway short of the green – for a wedge, two putts, and victory – Van de Velde pulled a two-iron and went for it.

Stupid, people said and still say. But I'm not so sure. What gets overlooked is that Van de Velde was in a very similar situation to Atwal – with two extra strokes to spare. Van de Velde felt confident he would get the ball to the green. And he knew (this is key) that if he sprayed the ball left or right, it would go in the grandstands and he would get a free drop near the green. Chip, two (or even three) putts, and victory.

Sure enough, the ball flew far and to the right, into the grandstands. That's when Van de Velde got perhaps the worst break in major championship history. Instead of hitting a fan or a seat and settling down safely among the people, the ball hit a round railing absolutely square (can you hit a round railing "squarely?") and took a huge bounce straight backwards. The ball flew so far back it hit the rocks lining the burn in front of the green, and took another big bounce, over the burn into the rough. (The way things played out from there, he would, in fact, have been better off if it had actually gone in the water at that point.)

This is where Van de Valde played the one shot he says he regrets. Rather than chip out sideways into the fairway, our French hero went for the green again, and chunked it into the burn from the gnarly rough. After wading into the water and briefly considering playing the ball from there (it was only half submerged at the time), he instead took a drop, hit his fifth shot into a greenside bunker, blasted out, and sunk a seven-footer for a triple-bogey 7 to sneak into a playoff – which he lost handily. (Image: Van de Velde wades into the Barry Burn – and poses for pictures!? David Cannon/Getty Images, via pga.com)

My point is simply that I think Van de Velde gets too harshly criticized. His first two shots are completely defensible. In fact, I'd go so far as to say his 2-iron second shot was a smart play, just as Atwal's was.

Needless to say I'm in a small minority with this opinion, but I take great comfort in discovering that noted Sports Illustrated golf writer Michael Bamberger is on the same page. In his book "This Golfing Life" (primarily a collection of magazine articles), he writes:

[Jim] Nantz asks Van de Velde if he had seen Tin Cup, the movie in which Kevin Costner plays Roy McAvoy, a journeyman pro who dunks one ball after another in the water on the last hole of the U.S. Open, blowing his chance for victory by prizing pride over prudence. Van de Velde had seen it. ... He said you could not compare Roy McAvoy to him. "He went for the dream, the perfect shot," Van de Velde said. "I was just playing my game." I understood completely what he was saying. I know nobody who agrees with this, except for Van de Velde, but he did not misplay a single shot en route to his seven on the last hole of the British Open at Carnoustie, not mentally. When things go wrong mechanically, what can you do? But if a person is trying his best, there's not much to criticize, although Lord knows people make a nice living doing so anyhow.

Later, Bamberger describes Van de Velde's 18th-hole decision-making this way:

Van de Velde hit a driver off the tee because, as he told me, "I always hit a driver, whenever I can." Many have been critical of that decision. They don't recall that when Tom Kite came to the final hole of the 1992 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach with a two-shot lead, he hit a downwind driver, despite the ocean that lines the left side of the hole and the out-of-bounds on the right. He won with a par.
There was nothing wrong with the tee shot, even though Van de Velde pushed it wildly to the right. It carried the burn and finished in the rough, where he drew a perfect lie. The golfing gods had been smiling on him all week, and they continued to. For his second shot, he had 189 yards to clear the burn in front of the green. "I am a professional golfer. I miss my two-iron, it still goes 200 yards." Easily. He pulled his two-iron from the bag and pushed the shot. He carried the burn, easily. The ball was sailing into the grandstand. No big deal, he thought, that's a free drop.
And that's when the golf gods stopped smiling on him.

I agree, Michael! And something tells me that perhaps Arjun Atwal would, as well.

On Whistling Straits and Dustin Johnson

2010-08-18T09:55:00.010-05:00

I predicted this would happen. Well, not exactly this. But back in January I wrote ...

Someone (perhaps [Padraig] Harrington) will blow a final-round chance to win the PGA Championship by posting a big number on the brutal 18th at Whistling Straits.

I certainly didn't predict that it would be because he grounded his club in a bunker that he didn't think was a bunker to incur a two-stroke penalty to miss a three-way playoff after missing a seven-foot putt that he thought at the time was to win the championship! Unbelievable. (As far as Harrington is concerned, I was a little bit right: He posted a double-bogey 6 in the second round to miss the cut by a stroke.)

After reflecting on the tournament for a few days, the one overriding reaction I have is a certain sadness that Whistling Straits is getting beat up because of what happened. Alan Shipnuk, for instance, wrote the following in his "Hot List" at golf.com (Whistling Straits was #4 in the "Not" column):

All the flaws of this monument to artifice and excess were revealed on Sunday. If the best players in the world can't birdie a hole, then it can't be very good. The bevy of contenders combined to make exactly one birdie on 17 and 18, the latter of which might be the worst finishing hole in golf. And it's fitting the tournament was tainted by the contrived faux-bunkers which serve no purpose other than to look good on TV. On the to-do list before '15: 1) blow up 18 and start over, 2) fill in, oh, 400 or so useless bunkers, 3) create some safe, smooth walkways for fans, as dozens were injured on the extreme terrain.

A couple of things ... are the blossoming fruit trees at Augusta National "useless"? I know it's not exactly the same thing. But many, many of those trees never come into play and are certainly there only for "cosmetic" reasons. In fact, they are essential to the aesthetic of The Masters. Same with the bunkers at Whistling Straits. The course wouldn't be the same without them. It wouldn't play any different if you filled in 400 of them, but the course would lose much of it's "wow" factor. And what's wrong with wanting the course to look good on TV? Not to mention give on-site spectators something to be amazed by.
I would agree that the 18th needs a little more tweaking. But I have mixed feelings about making it more walkable for spectators. Some improved pathways might be a good idea, but I wouldn't want them to come at the expense of "extreme terrain," which again is a big part of the course's essence.

As far as being a monument to "artifice and excess," let's focus on the excess, and again make a comparison with Augusta. Other criticism I've read is that Herb Kohler, the course's owner and primary visionary, is an ego maniac who just wanted to have a visually spectacular course unlike any other in the world with more bunkers than you could imagine. I say, "so what?"

The complaint is that Whistling Straits was absurdly expensively to build and is absurdly expensive to play and maintain. If he wants to spend the money to build it, and people want to spend $350 or so to play it, I say more power to 'em. The course is truly one-of-a-kind, the kind of experience you go home and tell your friends about. Should every golf course take this approach? Of course not. But this course is a wonder, completely surreal. Not the kind of course you'd want to play on a regular basis, but the kind of course you put on your bucket list.

I have no idea how the course does financially. For all I know it may be bleeding Herb Kohler dry. But if that's what he wants to do with his fortune, that's his choice.

"Hazards" vs. "waste bunkers." I was there on Friday and spent an amazing day with the Golden Bear Cub, 8, along with reader RobT and his son "Big Nate," who recently turned 9. When we decided to take the boys, I resigned myself to the idea that we might spend only a few hours there before the boys got sick of it, but I am still astonished that we there for a full 10 hours – almost the entire time that golf was being played that day, thanks to the fog delay in the morning. And the only complaints we got all day were that we didn't get to see Tiger Woods (who didn't tee off until 5:45 p.m. and only played six holes) and, even more catostrophic, that by the time we walked back to the car the little parking lot shuttle carts had shut down for the day. ("But Dad, you PROMISED, that we'd get to take a shuttle back to the car!!!!!!" "No, son, I said we'd take one if we could.")

But I digress. The big reason we were able to keep the boys engaged so long is that the extreme terrain, including the useless bunkers, provided a welcome diversion when they grew bored at times with the golf. They climbed hills, jumped in and out of sand traps, had races, and, on one occasion, chased one another with "sand bombs" (OK, it was my son chasing Big Nate, an activity I quickly put a stop to). Providing entertainment for the kids was certainly not Pete Dye's intention with the course design, but the extreme terrain certainly added to the richness of our experience that day. It was a heck of a lot of fun.

And as we traversed the course and watched the kids cavort, we noticed all the out of play bunkers and wondered if they would be considered "waster bunkers." We came to the conclusion that yes, they probably were. Because some of them had grass and weeds growing in them, and many of them were trampled nearly beyond recognition. Some were in such odd spots that we speculated that certainly no one would ever hit into them! ("I don't know, I'll bet Keith could find this one," Rob speculated. (Sorry, Keith. Rob said it, not me.))

But as the world now knows, every bit of sand on Whistling Straits was to be considered a "hazard," and played according to the rules so governing it. A local rules accommodation was made, however, for removing loose stones from the bunkers. I nodded when I read this later, as I had noticed that some of the sand in the bunkers looked a little rocky. All the more natural, I suppose.

Which leads us now to "the big question." That is, was Johnson done an injustice? After much consideration, I have to say "no," unequivocably. Here's why ...

The biggest thing for me is simply that the players were informed beforehand, in the clearest possible terms, that all the bunkers would be played as hazards, no matter their condition. Johnson admitted that he didn't read the rules sheet – though he also said he was aware of the rule, but simply didn't recognize his lie as having been in a bunker. He thought it was just a bare spot worn down by the crowd. So the question then becomes, should he have recognized it as a bunker?

The biggest outrage seems to be coming from players and others who think it's ridiculous that the crowd would be allowed to stand in a bunker. How could he know it's a bunker when all those people are there? And there were no rakes, why would he think it might be a bunker? Again, the whole bunker situation should have been top of mind for the players. Much of the talk about the course all week was about the sheer number of them. The fact that it never occurred to Johnson that he might be in one smacks of mental laziness. Can you imagine Tiger or Jack ever making such a mistake?

The whole point of major championships is that it's supposed to be a mental challenge as well as a physical one – perhaps even more so. Many golfers have the game to win a major, but far fewer have the mental fortitude to actually do it. As Nicklaus once said, he always thought he had a better chance to win majors than regular tournaments because at least half the field is essentially eliminated before they even tee it up.

Then there's the argument that the walking rules official should have alerted Johnson that he was, in fact, in a bunker. Frankly, I don't like this argument at all. Before this all happened, it never would have occurred to me that a rules official would ever proactively remind a player about a rule. In fact, it seems to me that this ought to be forbidden. According to the rules of golf as I understand them, only a caddy may assist a player in any way during the course of play. No coaching is allowed, and players aren't even allowed to ask or tell each other what club they hit on a given shot. Why would a rules official be allowed to assist a player in such a way? The rules of golf being as complex as they are, I'm all for having an official on-hand to clarify and interpret the rules, but only at the player's request.

If rules officials are allowed, or even expected, to remind players of rules in certain situations, where does it begin and end? It brings a lot of outside judgment into play, and could certainly create a situation where differing styles and tendencies among rules officials could potentially give one player an advantage over another.

Over at Free Drop, a blog by USGA rules official John Vander Borght, in a post titled "Should [PGA official] David Price have said something?", John writes that "Decision 34-2/3 tells us that a referee has no obligation to warn a player and prevent a breach, but there is no problem with him doing so as long as he does it for all players." Again, this just reinforces what I think. If one referee does it for "all players," and another chooses not to do it for any, that creates a potentially uneven playing field.

There's also the argument that the marshals did a lousy job getting the crowd out of the way, and that if they had cleared a wider space Johnson might have been able to recognize it as a bunker. Again, I say, "so what?" I will grant that it looks like the crowd control could have been better, but this is just one of the "hazards" of playing the 72nd hole in a major tournament.

Also lost in this discussion is that Johnson got a tremendous break with his lie. If he had found himself in a deep footprint in the bunker and not allowed relief, I would likely be a little more sympathetic. According to the TV announcers, Johnson hit his drive some 40 yards to the right of where he was aiming. He was way outside the limits of where he could have been expected to have a reasonable lie. If it weren't for the crowds, he might have been in knee-deep fescue. Or if he had hit into a "properly maintained" bunker, he might have found himself plugged behind a deep lip. Fact is, he got a huge break, a lie he didn't really "deserve," and failed to take advantage by committing a huge mental blunder.

It's also interesting to note that announcer Jim Nantz recognized Johnson as being in a bunker and identified it as such on the air (hat tip: Free Drop):

And if you watch the video above, and look where Johnson's ball is, it's hard to imagine that it didn't even occur to him that he might be in a bunker. Again, a mental error of monumental proportions.

I mentioned Nicklaus above, in the context of it being hard to imagine him ever making such a mental blunder. But the fact is that a young Nicklaus did once screw up in a major, in a way that may have ultimately cost him a chance at the title. In the famous 1960 U.S. Open at Cherry Hills, Nicklaus, then a 20-year-old amateur, was paired with the legandary and intimidating Ben Hogan for the final two rounds. Late in the final round, Nicklaus found a ball mark between his ball and the cup on a short putt. He wasn't sure if he was allowed to fix it (he was) and was too afraid, in Hogan's presence, to ask him or anyone else if he was allowed. He missed the putt, and it rattled him enough that he fell apart a little bit after that.

Johnson is young, just 26 – which is very young to have contended so seriously in two majors in the same year. Everyone marveled how he bounced back from his final-round collapse at Pebble Beach in June. And Johnson himself says he's already moved on from his crushing loss at Whistling Straits. And that's great. A demeanor like his can be a great help in playing great golf. But you also have to wonder if his laid-back style – some would call it "lack of intensity" – will hinder him in clutch situations.

The greats of the game are at their mentally sharpest in clutch moments. So far, Johnson has not demonstrated this trait. He'll need to if wants to make the leap from being a highly-talented young player who's won a few times to one of the elite players in the game.

He has the talent. Only time will tell whether his major experiences this year will make him or break him.

UPDATE: Regarding crzsabas's comment below, please enjoy this word from the e-Trade Baby (a.k.a. "Nigel"?) himself:

UPDATE 2: Here is a good article at golfdigest.com talking with David Price, the PGA rules official, about what happened at 18.

Casual Water

2010-07-22T21:12:00.003-05:00

This is the scene The Whiffler arrived home to after work tonight. A narrow band of torrential rainstorms moved through the Milwaukee area – the LONG way – right about 5:00. I took this picture from next door, standing in at least two feet of water, because I had to park up the street since the water was so deep. There was already one car stalled in the water ahead of me.

All in all, we got off pretty easy. A few inches of water in the basement, which has already receded. And the good news is we think it's just water, not sewage. It's still raining at 9:00 with more on the way, and as I watch the local news I can see there is lots of significant flooding all around us. My brother-in-law a few miles away (the one married to my sister-in-law who was asking about the caddies) apparently has 20 inches of sewage in his basement. So we're more concerned about others than about us. Prayers are appreciated all around. Thanks.

UPDATE 2: In case anyone is concerned, we've been dealing with some water damage in the basement so I haven't had a chance to put up a new post in a while. All things considered, we feel very fortunate it wasn't worse. New posts will resume in due time.

UPDATE: For a gallery of pictures from the storm that hit Milwaukee Thursday evening, go here. A number of the pictures (but not the one shown below) are from Nicolet High School, which is a half-mile from my house.

Intervention at the Old Course?

2010-07-21T00:01:00.002-05:00

The Whiffler has been known to take shots at Sergio Garcia from time to time – primarily in regard to his occasionally sour disposition and his penchant for excuse-making. But there's no denying his talent (not to mention is flair) and I find it a bit of a shame that he hasn't capitalized more on his enormous potential. It's not like he hasn't accomplished anything; he has 19 professional wins around the world, including 7 on the PGA Tour.

But in some ways, he seems to have fallen a long way since he nearly knocked off Tiger Woods in the 1999 PGA Championship. Back then he was a fountain of boundless energy and unbridled joy who seemed destined to step up and challenge Tiger for golf's top spot. Today he is a grouchy old man of 30 mired in a pitiful slump who seems to have lost all of that joy and much of that energy. He's no longer the "Best Player Never To Have Won a Major." Not because he finally won one, but because he's just not that good right now. (Image: Getty Images via golfdigest.com)

But I love stories of redemption (which is why I'm still rooting for Tiger to turn things around, though more in his personal life than on the golf course). So I was intrigued to read this item in the "Local Knowledge" blog at golfdigest.com. Apparently, some people close to Sergio decided he needed a kick in the pants about his attitude and had a few words with him:

"You don't need to know, but it was people that I care about and people that care about me, and that's the important stuff," Garcia said when asked who spoke to him. "It's probably because it was the kind of day where I was really, really angry at myself, and it kind of made me feel a little better and probably realize things. I'm just hoping that I can keep doing the same things."

The Friday night "intervention" apparently had an effect, as the passionate Spaniard was reportedly much more upbeat following his Saturday round of 70 (after back-to-back 71s to start off the week). His eventual T14 finish was his best in a major since his tie for 10th at the 2009 U.S. Open. (Not a long stretch, I know, but his performance in majors has been very erratic for years.)

Hopefully, he will be able to "keep doing the same things," whatever those may be. It seems like he's been around forever, but he's only 30. And the recent and long-overdue success of Justin Rose, another former boy-wonder who celebrated his 30th this year, is why we shouldn't give up on Sergio. If he can shed a few of his demons and gain some proper perspective, maybe he can yet become a great player.

There's plenty of time left. And admitting you have a problem, as they say, is a big first step.

Open Championship Tap-Ins

2010-07-19T21:25:00.003-05:00

A few stray shots on the recently concluded 2010 Open Championship at St. Andrews ...

Tiger's Putter. I found the whole Tiger Woods putter drama fairly interesting. On one hand, it probably wasn't that big a deal, because his new Nike Method putter was very similar to his old Scotty Cameron Titleist model – which he'd use to win 13 of his 14 majors. The new one no doubt had been set up to feel as much like the old one as possible; the difference being the "hotter" face on the Nike to get the ball moving a little quicker on the slow St. Andrews greens. But to me the bigger surprise was not the switch but the switch back on Sunday. It made me wonder two things: 1) Had Nike been pressuring Tiger at all to switch to a Nike putter? As I understand it, Tiger's club contract allows him some flexibility with club choices. But it's not hard to imagine something like this coming from Nike, either stated of implied: "Tiger, we stuck with you through all of this, now it's your turn to do something for us." 2) Conversely, how did Nike feel about him abandoning it after three rounds? After all the ballyhoo, they could not have been too happy.

More significantly, you have to wonder if Tiger's putting switcheroo is a sign of desperation. Could Tiger's putting stroke be starting to abandon him – for good? It's astonishing how many all-time great golfers had their putting strokes go south at some point – or at least not be what they once were. Palmer, Hogan, Watson, and Snead come immediately to mind. Lower on the list are guys like Singh and Langer, who try all kinds of different methods to regain their putting touch. It's been easy to think of Tiger as being immune to such "human" frailties. But, as Joe Posnanski (one of the most consistently thoughtful writers on all things Tiger) writes, Tiger may be closer to descending back to earth than a lot of people are willing to admit.

UPDATE: A little more on Tiger's putter saga from David Dusek at golf.com here (in which the author, among other things, briefly addresses the "conspiracy theory" posed above about Nike's role in the switch. In short: He doesn't buy it).

Rory's Roller-coaster. What to make of Rory McIlroy? For one, I just love the fact that he still has never shot in the 70s at the Old Course – it's just that one of those non-70s rounds is now an inglorious 80. His 63 on Thursday was very impressive. Yes, it was shot in extremely benign conditions, but you still have to hit the shots and make the putts. And he bested the field by two strokes with his major championship record-tying score. As impressive as he was on Thursday, he looked just as lost in the high winds on Friday. But he showed a lot by bouncing back with 69-68 on the weekend to finish tied for third. Makes you wonder if anyone has ever finished so high in a major with an 80 on the card.

And speaking of benign conditions ...

St. Andrews without Wind. It really was amazing how easy the course looked on Thursday morning. It was tempting to think that maybe St. Andrews has been "outgrown" by the caliber of today's players and the level of today's technology. I don't think that's the case. It seems to me that it's really just a matter of the elements being an essential part of the Old Course experience. It played tough enough the rest of the week. And if they "tricked up" the course any more to guard against the windless onslaught, the course could get almost unplayable when the weather changes – which it can do at a moment's notice. It seems unfair that the guys who played Thursday morning had so much better scoring conditions than the afternoon group, but that really is just part of the game – especially in links golf. The ones who accept that – even embrace it – are the ones who will succeed (see: Watson, Tom). The ones who don't ...

Phil's Demeanor. I have to say I was disappointed in Phil Mickelson's performance. Not with his ball-striking so much as his attitude. He felt cheat by having to play in the bad afternoon weather on Thursday, but rather than shrug it off, do his best to look at it as an extra challenge instead of a tragedy, he seemed to pout his way around the golf course. He looked defeated before his was halfway through his first round. Again, see: Watson, Tom. Story goes (retelling from memory) that Watson's longtime caddie Bruce Edwards, who went to work for Greg Norman for a couple years later in his career, explained the difference between his two bosses this way: He said that if Norman would hit a perfect drive only to subsequently find his ball in divot, he would get upset and curse his luck. Watson, on the other hand, would say something like, "Watch what I can do with this shot!" It takes only looking at Norman's and Watson's respective records in majors to understand which approach is more effective. (Are you reading this, Phil?) Speaking of attitude ...

Louie Ooie. I'm not sure which was more impressive, Louis Oosthuizen's ball-striking (especially his driving) or his calm on-course demeanor. Everybody, myself included, seemed convinced that he was a "rabbit," one of those no-name early leaders who sets a torrid pace in the early going but then inevitably fades. But he surprised us all with an historic display of precision ball-striking and all-around good play. He won by SEVEN! That's huge. That's Tiger big. His win was no fluke (even though he did benefit from the benign conditions on Thursday morning). Only time will tell where he goes from here, but he's easy to like and easy to root for. And I love the little red dot that he has on his glove to think about when he's trying not to think about anything. You can bet you'll be seeing a few more red dots around the golf world in the near future.

Gary Player and the Claret Jug. Finally, I got a big kick out of a story told near the end of the ESPN telecast – I think by Mike Tirico – about the engraving of names on the legendary trophy. Back in the day, it was once the responsibility of the winner to have his own name engraved on the trophy (such as is the case with the legendary WLC traveling trophy). However, when Gary Player won it (likely either in 1974 or 1968, Tirico did not specify) he had his name engraved LARGER than the other names! Ever since, the R&A has taken the responsibility of engraving the names on the Claret jug. This story strikes me as one that could be apocryphal, but I want to believe it because it's so consistent with what I've written about Player previously: that even though by all accounts he's a warm, charming, gracious, and generous individual, his ego sometimes gets the better of him!

Stricker Week, Continued

2010-07-12T06:14:00.001-05:00

The Whiffler is feeling a bit prescient this morning about predicting that Steve Stricker was primed to have a good week at the John Deere Classic, where he ended up coasting to a second consecutive win on Sunday. A lot of fireworks during the week, including a 54-hole PGA Tour scoring record following rounds of 60, 66, and 62. The most amazing stat of this birdie barrage? Stricker birdied every par-5 on the week, going 12 for 12 on the par-71 course. Through Saturday, he had only two 5's on his scorecard, and one of those came on a brain-fart missed two-footer for par on 9 (his 18th) on Friday. All the rest were 2's, 3's, and 4's. During those first three rounds he birdied exactly half the holes, 27 out of 54. (Image: AP)

As usual, he was a little shaky on Sunday – he still hasn't seemed to figure out how to keep the throttle down with a big lead – but he held on for a comfortable two-stroke victory over the persistent Paul Goydos. All in all it was a very impressive performance. Whether he can take that with him to St. Andrews remains to be seen, of course, but if nothing else it makes him one to watch this weekend in Scotland. (It also validates The Whiffler's earlier prediction that Stricker would again win multiple titles in 2010.)

Congratulations, Steve, on another fine victory and good luck at the Old Course!

Goydos vs. Stricker

2010-07-09T00:16:00.001-05:00

Holy smokes! When I updated the post below saying that Steve Stricker would have his work cut out for him to catch Paul Goydos (who shot 59 this morning) and repeat as champion this week, I didn't think he would try to make it all up in one round! What a match that would have been, if Steve and Paul had been going head-to-head in match play. Perhaps it would have played out something like this (with the leader's score to-par in parentheses) ...

Thru 1: Stricker 1-up (-1)

Thru 2: Stricker 1-up (-2)

Thru 3: Stricker 1-up (-2)

Thru 4: All Square (-2)

Thru 5: Stricker 1-up (-3)

Thru 6: All Square (-3)

Thru 7: All Square (-4)

Thru 8: Stricker 1-up (-5)

Thru 9: Stricker 1-up (-5)

So as they make the turn and grab a lemonade in the clubhouse (with Stricker graciously picking up the tab), Stricker holds a one-hole advantage, having shot 30 to Goydos's 31.

"Nice shooting, Paul," says Stricker, his eyes welling up with tears at the prospect of a thrilling back nine.

"Not bad I guess," Goydos responds, rolling his eyes slightly, "for a broken-down old man with no shoulders."

And the match continues ...

Thru 10: Stricker 1-up (-6)

Thru 11: Stricker 1-up (-7)

The gallery swells as the birdie barrage continues. Somewhere, Phil and Tiger are glued to their TV sets. Phil cheers them both on; Tiger ... plays video games.

Thru 12: All Square (-7)

Thru 13: All Square (-8)

Thru 14: Goydos 1-up (-9)

Goydos hits 3-wood, sand wedge to six feet on 14 to take his first lead of the day with a birdie! Serious buzz about a possible 59 begins to grow. "This is quite a match, don't you think, Paul?" Stricker offers as a means of mutual encouragement. "Pffft," snorts Goydos, a.k.a "Sunshine," who once described himself as "the crust" of the PGA Tour.

Thru 15: Goydos 1-up (-9)

Thru 16: Goydos 1-up (-10)
Thru 17: Goydos 1-up (-11)

"This is surely the greatest game ever played!" declares legendary scribe Bernard Darwin from beyond the grave. "Even better than Ouimet defeating Vardon and Ray in 1913!"
     Inspired, other departed greats of the game begin to weigh in:
   "I expect someone's about to shoot a 59 -- Lord willin', of course," says Byron Nelson.
     "Thes is as braw a roon ay golf as i've ever seen – an' frae tois braw gentlemen ay th' gam," adds Old Tom Morris.
     "Jolly good, I say!" echoes Harry Vardon.
      "You know, I think that's the first time I ever birdied this hole," says Ben Hogan, who seems a bit too involved in his own Heavenly game at the moment.

A rousing ovation erupts for the combatants as they approach the 18th tee -- which quickly turns to a reverent hush as Goydos lines it up. He needs a birdie for 59, but the match still hangs in the balance. Goydos swings and finds the right side of the fairway on the 476-yard par-4. He'll have 177 yards to the front-left pin. Stricker steps up and drives it about 10 yards past Goydos, also on the right half of the fairway.
   Goydos is away, and drills a 7-iron to seven feet. He'll have that for 59 and to win the match – unless Stricker can hole his 160-yard approach. Stricker pulls what looks like a 9-iron – and nearly jars it! He'll have just over two feet to tie if Goydos misses. But Goydos calmly rolls it in to become, at 46, the oldest player to shoot 59 on the PGA Tour and win the match 1-up. And Stricker taps in for 60. Certainly the lowest pair of scores ever recorded in a single match.
     "Well played, Paul," Stricker sniffs, the tears flowing freely now. "Well played."
   "Thanks, Steve," Goydos answers. "Today was a nuclear bomb. I don't know where it came from. If I knew that, I wouldn't be able to touch it."
   Somewhere, Al Geiberger, Chip Beck, David Duval, and Annika Sorenstam are raising a toast – and wondering just what the heck Goydos means by that.

Update: I love this quote from the 5'-9" Paul Goydos: "Most people try to shoot their age. I shot my height." (From the Orange County Register, via golfdigest.com.) What's ironic is that Stricker, who is listed at 6'-0", also shot his height that day! (I love weird stats like that.)

Stricker Week

2010-07-08T10:55:00.009-05:00

Steve Stricker is tanned, rested, and ready as he returns to the John Deere Classic this week as defending champion. Since he took some time off to let an injured clavicle heal, the Whiffling Straits favorite has plummeted in the world rankings – from second all the way to fourth after being passed by first Phil Mickelson and then Lee Westwood. And though he's looked a little rusty since returning, watch for things to come together this week close to home in Silvis, Illinois.

In 2009, Steve fired a course-record-tying 61 in Saturday's rain-delayed second round, then held on with a 68-64 to hold off Brandt Snedeker, Brett Quigley, and local favorite Zach Johnson for a three-shot victory.

I love how this second-tier tournament, staged the week before the Open Championship, charters a plane to attract Britain-bound players to its humble festivities in the humble Midwest. Maybe this year the John Deere winner will hop on the plane, fly to St. Andrews and take home the Claret Jug. Maybe it'll be Steve. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

BREAKING: If Steve Stricker is going to win this week, he'll have to catch Paul Goydos, who JUST SHOT A 59!!

Happy Independence Day!

2010-07-04T14:07:00.001-05:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In Congress – July 4, 1776

A Day at Whistling Straits

2010-07-01T22:01:00.001-05:00

Wow, what an amazing day at Whistling Straits on Tuesday, where The Whiffler took part in the Stacey Elizabeth Mayer Foundation golf outing. Amazing weather. A beautiful course. Fun playing partners. Great people and a great cause. Here are a few of highlights and observations ...

The Irish Course. The less-famous little sister of the formidable Straits Course is still a hoot to play. Pete Dye himself graces the scorecard to tell us that "There's nothing in the United States that has the look and feel of this course" (if he does say so himself). The terrain is very similar: jagged sand dunes, gaping traps and waste areas, knee-high (at least) grass, and barely a flat lie anywhere but the tee boxes. Instead of Lake Michigan (which comes into view on several holes), water hazards are courtesy of a few ponds and a winding creek. (Click photos to enlarge.)

#10 on the Irish ("Shepherd's Post"): 361 White; 398 Black.

One of the things that struck me about the course is how "accessible" it was from the White tees (the second-shortest set), from which Duane, Bob, Donna, and I played our four-ball scramble. The White tees measure just 5,992 yards; the Greens add up to 6,336; the Blues 6,750; and the Blacks 7,201. From the Whites (Donna played the Reds), we generally had no difficulty keeping the ball in play. On only one occasion did none of us manage to hit the fairway, which for the most part had fairly generous landing areas. However, it was clear that off-target tee shots would be punished severely in a regular round. Even though we shot what felt like an impressive 61 for our scramble (we were several strokes off the winning score, though we took pride in the fact we didn't use any pre-purchased mulligans), I hit enough bad shots to know that my individual score would have been higher than I would've liked.

#11 on the Irish ("Lamb Chop"): 169 White; 208 Black.

While the Straits course is famously walking only, with a caddie required, the Irish Course allows carts, but the rule is "cart paths only" at all times. This helps keep the fairways in pristine condition and helps preserve the feel of a traditional Irish layout.

Normally, I'm not a big fan of the scramble format; I usually find myself wishing I could just play for my own score. The format also tends to mess with my head a little bit. If my team doesn't yet have a ball safelyin play when I step up, the pressure gets to me. Conversely, when we are safely in the fairway it's hard not to try to kill the ball, which of course usually throws everything off. In this case, however, I thoroughly enjoyed the team competition. Bob, Donna, Duane and I had a great time together – and we all seemed to come through for the team at various times.

And, against all odds, I hit two of my longest drives ever on our 16th and 17th holes (#4 and #5; we started on #7), when I swung for the fences with a ball already in play. Both were a little flukey and a lot lucky, cutting the corner on two doglegs, but they set us up for a birdie and an eagle. I also sank the biridie putt on our final hole, making the final three holes among the most satisfying I've ever played. A great way to finish.

#4 on the Irish, a long dogleg par-4 (489 yards from the Black tees; 407 from the White), the site of my longest-ever drive "on paper."

#2 on the Irish ("Giant's Leap"): 340 White; 372 Black.

The Irish Course was described in this 2006 article at golf.com as a "quirky but endearing patchwork quilt of a course" featuring "nine holes routed through man-made dunes flashed with sand; six parkland-style holes crisscrossed by creeks; and three holes wrapped around ponds." Frankly, I don't remember noticing quite so much of a stark contrast among the holes, which seemed to blend well together to me. The pond holes, however, such as #2 above, definitely provided a change of pace (though now that I think about it, I think #2 is probably one of the "parkland" holes).

The Straits Course. I only got a glimpse of the Straits of course: holes 1, 9, 10, and 18 from the clubhouse, and a couple others from high spots on the Irish. But it was exciting to see that preparations (such as the construction of grandstands) are already underway for the PGA Championship in August.

In 2004, pre-tournament fears that the course would play too hard led organizers to take it easy – too easy! – on the golfers in the first round, in particular. I seem to recall that -7 was the leading score after Thursday, which prompted a local radio commentator to speculate that course owner Herb Kohler (of Kohler plumbing fame) was probably hurling toilets through windows at the American Club (which he also owns) in a fit of rage. The course played harder and harder as the week wore on, however, and was positively brutalizing the players by Sunday. Vijay Singh shot a final round 76 to squeak into a three-hole playoff with Justin Leonard and Chris DiMarco, which Singh won.

With one major championship already in the books, I expect they'll set the course up a little more consistently (that is, consistently difficult) in 2010, which should be absolutely fascinating to watch. And if the wind blows (which it didn't much in 2004), look out! I'll be there on Friday, and I expect to find the proceedings very entertaining.

#10 on the Straits as seen from the tips, the Black tees. At 389 yards, it will offer the PGA pros one of their best birdie opportunities. It's the hole Vijay Singh birdied in the playoff to claim the 2004 title.

#11 on the Straits, as seen from an unfortunate spot on the Irish Course. In the center of of the photo is a massive sand trap, 8- or 10-feet deep, that challenges anyone crazy enough to go for the green in two on this 608-yard (Black tees) par-5.

The 18th green on the Straits in the late afternoon light. The massive clover-shaped green occupies more than 18,000 square feet.

The Stacey Elizabeth Mayer Foundation. As I mentioned in my previous post, I was offered a "scholarship" to play in this fundraiser by Steve and Sue Mayer, the parents of Stacey, who was killed in a car accident in July 2007 at the age of 19. She was home at the time from attending the Capernwray Bible College in England. Steve and Sue established the foundation to provide scholarships for deserving students to attend Capernwray. It's a wonderful cause, a great foundation, and a fitting way to both both remember Stacey and honor Jesus.

After the round, Mrs. Whiffler drove up for the dinner, where we reconnected with a number of people we hadn't seen in a while. So thank you, Steve and Sue, and the entire Mayer family, for including us in this wonderful event! It was a true blessing to be a part of it.

A Caddie's Perspective

2010-06-25T08:36:00.000-05:00

During the Father's Day blowout at the House of Whiffle that kept me from fully engaging in the final round of the 2010 U.S. Open, I had an interesting discussion with my sister-in-law. Though she's not a golfer, she was curious about the events unfolding on the TV in the kitchen (where I was in charge of the food preparation). In particular, she was asking about the role of the caddie: "Do the players have their own regular caddies, or do they have different ones every week?" Most full-time touring professionals have their own caddies who travel with them, I explained. Though they sometimes change from time to time.

"Do they tell them which club to use?" Not exactly, but they do usually provide input. And certainly the yardages. A lot of it depends on the player, and how much he expects from the caddie, and what kind of a relationship the two of them have.

"Is the caddie like a coach?" Well, a little bit, sometimes. They won't typically give the player advice on their swing, but they often help them read the green and make strategy decisions. More than anything – again, depending on the player – they're like an on-course sports psychologist. At least the good ones are.

After the tournament, a couple of caddies got some extra attention in the press: Steve Williams, because of how Tiger Woods seemed to blame him, at least in part, for a couple of poor decisions made during Sunday's disappointing final round; and Bobby Brown (no, not that Bobby Brown), Dustin Johnson's caddie. Brown's role was notable because he had previously spent three years as a full-time caddie at Pebble Beach – and because Johnson had won the two previous AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am titles. Certainly, it seemed their combined experience at the famous course would help Johnson carry the day on Sunday.

But, as we all now know, it was not to be. Johnson, who began the day with a three-shot lead, shot a disastrous 82 to finish in a tie for 8th. (Image: Johnson and Brown embrace after Johnson won the 2010 AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am . Stuart Franklin/Getty Images, via Seattle Times.)

We don't know what Williams thinks about Tiger's comments or his final round (at least not yet, as far as I know). Tiger's long-time looper would likely go the way of Fluff Cowan if he spoke out. But we do know what Brown thinks, thanks to an insightful interview by Kevin Merfeld of the Monterey Herald. Here's just a taste, where Brown addresses the left-handed chip Johnson attempted from the deep greenside fescue on the second hole (where Johnson scored a triple bogey 7):

"I was a little bit shocked to see him go at that thing left-handed, because the first thing I thought he was going to do was take an unplayable, or chip it back into the bunker," Brown said. "It all happened so fast. I was about ready to say something, and he kind of told me to get out of the way and said, 'I got this.' At that point, you kind of get out of the way. Maybe next time I won't get out of the way. I'm not sure." [Hat tip: golf.com]

And there's the rub. How hard should a caddie push when he thinks his golfer is making a bad decision? If Jim "Bones" McCay had gotten his way at Augusta earlier this year, Phil Mickelson would have laid up on that now-famous 6-iron from the between the trees on 13. But Bones has been with Phil ever since he turned pro in 1992, and he knows by now just how hard to push – and when to step back and say, "OK, you're the boss, now give it a good rip!"

In the Golf Channel documentary "Caddy for Life" (based on the book by John Feinstein), Tom Watson tells of a time when his long-time caddie Bruce Edwards cursed him out in the middle of the round. It seems a discouraged Watson was dithering about whether to go for it or lay up on a par-5. Edwards felt strongly that Watson should do the former – and that his golfer needed a good kick in the pants, as well! So Edwards read him the riot act (including a few expletives), threw Watson's 7-iron and 3-wood at his feet, and then stormed down the fairway with the bag, leaving Watson to make up his own dang mind. Again, it takes a special relationship for something like this to transpire – without a subsequent termination. (Image: Watson and Edwards. Martin/Getty Images, via newyorkdailynews.com)
Maybe Brown should not have been so quick to "get out of the way" on the second hole. But it's impossible to say. If he had talked Johnson into trying something different, and it hadn't worked out, it might have rattled Johnson just as much. It's kind of a no-win situation: Caddies are often quick to get the blame but rarely get proper credit when they contribute to a win.

Swing coach? No. Sports psychologist? Absolutely. Scapegoat? Sometimes. No doubt about it, a successful tour caddie is a special breed.

Note: As far as I can tell, "caddie" is the preferred spelling for the word describing a golfer's bag-toting assistant, though "caddy" is the spelling used in the title of Feinstein's book. Either is considered correct.

A Mountain-top Whiffle

2010-06-22T20:25:00.000-05:00

A little something to help get us through those post-major doldrums ...

Hat tip: failblog.org

A "whiffle" is a post that's light or insignificant in nature and may have nothing to do with golf.

Tap-Ins

2010-06-21T22:22:00.006-05:00

A few back-handed stabs at things that have caught my attention, at the U.S. Open and elsewhere ...

No Fourth First for #1. Boy, it's hard to know what to make of Tiger Woods these days. On Saturday, he looked like his old self. His second-shot approach on number 18, a big left-to-right bender around the fairway trees, was one for the archives. He looked poised to take charge on Sunday and claim his fourth U.S. Open title. But instead he looked as mortal as everyone else. So we know he still has it in him; he just can't seem to tap into it on demand these days.
I also couldn't help but wonder if the prospect of a big win on Father's Day might have gotten into his head just a bit. On Saturday night, when it looked like he might just be able to win this thing, I found myself thinking, "Who will he hug?" His dad has passed on and his own kids are off with Elin somewhere, presumably. It's like that commercial where the kid makes a hole-in-one in the fading twilight, only to realize there was no one around to see it. Seldom does a man feel so alone as in the light of solitary glory.
And you know what I wish? I wish he'd drop the dropped club routine when he hits a bad one. It just bugs me; strikes me as childish. It's like he wants us to know that he knows he hit a bad shot before we can figure it out for ourselves. He probably does without even really thinking about it, but it's unnecessary. But then, it's not an F-bomb. And with all he's going through, maybe we should just take what we can get.

No Sixth Second for #2. Was I the only kinda sorta hoping that if Phil Mickelson didn't win on Sunday that he would finish second? It would have been the sixth runner-up finish in the U.S. Open for the man who already holds the record at five. It sounds cruel, I know. And Phil himself was quoted after the tournament saying, "I'm glad it wasn't a second." But that would have been something, wouldn't it? It's the sort of quirky statistic I often find myself rooting for. But hey, it could have been worse. (Image: John Biever/Sports Illustrated, via golf.com)

Sweet T16. How 'bout them college kids, huh? My new favorite amateur, Illini star and NCAA champ Scott Langley, and Georgia Bulldog Russell Henley showed up a lot of veterans at Pebble Beach. Both shot +8 292 to tie for 16th place overall and share the low-amateur honors. It was just the third time in the last 30 years an amateur has finished in the top 20 at the U.S. Open, something never accomplished by Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson. They finished tied with Lee Westwood and Jim Furyk, and placed ahead of such notables as Sergio Garcia (+9), Angel Cabrera (+9), Tom Watson (+11), Kenny Perry (+12), Ryo Ishikawa (+12), Vijay Singh (+13), Stewart Cink (+13), Steve Stricker (+15), Camilo Villegas (+18), Zach Johnson (+22), and Rory McIlroy (MC), to name only a few.
You can read more about Henley's performance here, about Langley's U.S. Open here, and read a Q&A with Langley here.

Practice round at Erin Hills. In my previous post, I wrote that some feel the tiny town of Erin, home to Erin Hills golf course, is not up for hosting a major sporting even like the U.S. Open (Erin Hill was just awarded the 2017 event). On Sunday, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran an article about the town's opportunity for a "practice round" when the course hosts the 2011 U.S. Amateur Championship. They're going to need it. Because if the lead photo is any indication, the most exciting thing going on in Erin these days is the daily father-son sweeping exhibitions at the local gas station.

Whiffling Straits at Whistling Straits. The Whiffler is excited to announce that he's been invited to take part in a golf outing at Whistling Straits next week. We'll be on the Irish Course, not the Straits Course (which is where the pros will play in August), but Pete Dye's less-famous Kohler gem will easily be the finest course I've ever played. Will Whiffling Straits be blogging about the Whistling Straits experience? Did a young Ben Hogan sleep in a sand trap in order to get the best caddie jobs early in the morning? (The answer is "yes.") (Image: The 6th at the Irish Course at Whistling Straits, golf.com)
The occasion is the third annual golf outing for the Stacey Elizabeth Mayer Foundation, established two years ago to fund scholarships for students attending Capernwray Bible School in Carnforth, England. Stacey, 19, was a student there when she was killed in a car crash while home in Wisconsin for the summer in 2007. Her parents, Steve and Sue Mayer, are friends of ours and I'm proud to take part in such a worthwhile event.

Erin Hills Awarded 2017 U.S. Open

2010-06-16T22:18:00.005-05:00

Here's what I know about the natural beauty in Erin, Wisconsin:

In many ways, Erin Hills is the antithesis of Whistling Straits. To craft the Straits, Pete Dye had literally thousands of truckloads of sand brought into what was basically wasteland by the lake transformed into a magically artificial landscape. What makes Erin Hills so amazing was how so little earth was moved. I liken it to Michaelangelo simply "revealing" a sculpture that God had already put inside a block of marble. Erin Hills was carved by glaciers; course architects Michael Hurdzan, Dana Fry, and Ron Whitten merely exposed the course that God had put there. (Image: #7 at Erin Hills, Paul Hundley PhotoGraphic, via erinhills.com. Click to enlarge.)

It has an interesting and complicated history. Even though the course has only been open since 2006 (and only for part of that time – it's actually closed at the moment), it's already changed hands and undergone more than one renovation. Here is an excellent article from Golf Digest chronicling the drama. In a nutshell, the original owner, Bob Lang, ran out of money (and expertise, frankly) pursuing his dream to make the course suitable for a U.S. Open bid. Basically, the renovations the course is undergoing currently involve undoing many of the changes the overeager Lang made to bring the course up to snuff. Frankly, after reading this article the other day, I was a little surprised the USGA was still interested. But they must have faith in the current ownership (and in the site) that the course will be all it can be by June 2017. (Image: #3 at Erin Hills, Paul Hundley PhotoGraphic, via erinhills.com. Click to enlarge.)

Those church spires you see in the background in some pictures belong to the cathedral at the "Basilica of the National Shrine of Mary Help of Christians at Holy Hill" – better known simply as "Holy Hill." It's a pretty amazing place, visible for miles around. The grounds are open to the public and you can climb the tower for a breathtaking view of the surrounding landscape. In the fall it's absolutely stunning.

It's really off the beaten path and hidden away from view. I visited the course once last year while on a motorcycle ride. It was not easy to find. Even after I found it, it was not easy to discern there was a golf course there at all! I didn't have much time, so I didn't venture past the parking lot, but I did pause to take this picture by the simple four-plank sign out front. The top plank says "Welcome to Erin Hills." The second plank says "2008 U.S. Women's Amateur Public Links." The third reads "2011 U.S. Amateur." And the fourth plank is said to be reserved for a future U.S. Open. I wonder how fast they'll fill it in? (Photo: The Whiffler)

Not everyone is happy about the Open coming. Because it's so out of the way, some of the locals are concerned that there aren't enough roads and other infrastructure to handle the crowds – or that they don't want the development that may come along with a U.S. Open. But I think the USGA is usually pretty savvy about this sort of thing – at least if John Feinstein's book "Open," about the U.S. Open coming to Bethpage Black for the first time is any indication. And the course is close enough to the Milwaukee metro area that there should be plenty of hotels, restaurants, etc. to accommodate everyone. And there's always my basement.

More later ...

Steve Stricker Wins U.S. Open!

2010-06-15T17:00:00.005-05:00

Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But not outrageous thinking, by any means, in The Whiffler's estimation. Stricker winning the 2010 U.S. Open is certainly more likely to happen than for Tiger Woods to win by 15 strokes again, as he did 10 years ago, the last time the U.S. Open was played at Pebble Beach.
In fact, here is a whole list of things that are more likely to happen in the next five days than Tiger winning by 15:

Justin Rose and Rickie Fowler could stage their own consolation tournament. Call it the "Coulda-Shoulda Cup." Among the invitees: Jordan Spieth, Corey Pavin, Tom Kite, J.B. Holmes, Lee Janzen, and Tony Romo, all of whom, to greater or lesser degrees of fanfare, failed to qualify for this year's event. Trophy: A blaze-orange sportcoat with a Union Jack pattern. First prize: $150 (the entry fee for a U.S. Open qualifier) and an honorary membership in the Vijay Singh fan club. (Image: golf.puma.com)

Rory McIlroy could win by 15. To clarify, these are not things I expect to happen. But Rory McIlroy has a better chance of blowing away the field this week than Tiger does. The young Irishman showed at Quail Hollow that he's not afraid to go low – and has the kind of game that can transcend the ordinary. Granted, he has some consistency issues (he's barely 21!), but if anyone in the field has the potential to heat up this week and run away with it, it's Rory. We've seen glimpses (but only glimpses so far) of his "A" game, and it's breathtaking.

The Monterey Peninsula could be invaded by vuvuzela-blowing World Cup soccer fans. Not likely, as they're all busy down in South Africa this week, thank goodness. But if any stray horn-blowers were to infiltrate the Pebble Beach proceedings, you can be certain that the USGA and its henchmen would clamp down on the unwelcome intruders faster than Steve Williams can grab a camera from your hands.

Ray Romano could break 80. By my calculation, Hank Haney is now 0-for-2 in his Golf Channel "projects," having failed to rehabilitate Charles Barkley or coach Romano to a sub-80 round. I wonder if his reputation will suffer at all? In fairness, however, I really enjoyed the final episode with Ray, where Hank had him play a one-man, two-ball scramble on a miserably wet and rainy day at Liberty National. When Hank asked him to predict a score, Ray, always the negative thinker, said "83." He then went on to shoot a scramble score of 3-over 75 in the tough conditions. Knowing that he had, in essence, a mulligan on every shot relaxed him, and allowed him to hit mostly good shots on the first try. And the exercise showed that Ray has it in him to hit enough quality shots to break 80 easily, if he can free himself from the negative thoughts that haunt him on the course. A lesson for us all, I think.

Phil the Thrill could hit a whale. Remember, at Pebble (that's what the cool kids call it, just "Pebble") there are no corporate tents to the left of the 18th fairway to keep Phil's ball in play, as there were at Winged Foot in 2006. There are only rip tides and marine life. So don't be shocked if you see Lefty wading in toward the setting Father's Day sun, a la George Costanza, looking for a Callaway lodged in a blowhole. ("The sea was angry that day, my friends. Like John Daly trying to send back a decaffeinated Diet Coke at Hooters.")

Sergio Garcia could blame his poor performance on global warming. The ocean is right there, after all, and how can a guy concentrate when it's getting higher and higher all the time? It's just not fair.

NCAA champ Scott Langley could wear a "Save the Chief" hat in the first round. Langley, a University of Illinois junior, is not a native Flatlander (he hails from Manchester, Missouri), so he may not have had a chance to develop a high level of loyalty to Chief Illiniwek before his visage was banned by the didactic and nefarious NCAA. But after earning a spot in the U.S. Open just four days after claiming the U of I's first-ever NCAA men's individual golf title (Stricker's best finish was ninth), Langley is most likely feeling a rush of school pride. Why not put it on display in a big way?

Tom Watson could win the dang thing. No, seriously, he could! Pebble Beach is not long by major championship standards. It is not a golf course your can overpower. Rather, hitting fairways and greens, and playing smart golf, Watson's fortes, will be paramount. Even more so than usual. If his putter catches fire as it did for 71 holes at Turnberry last year, I think he has a chance to contend – unless ...

Jack Nicklaus could come out of retirement just to kick Watson's butt. What, you think if the Golden Bear asked for a last-minute special exemption the USGA wouldn't give it to him? You just know he's been wanting to give young whippersnapper Tom Watson what-for since that dagger to the heart at the 17th in 1982. After all, Nicklaus won his Pebble Beach U.S. Open (in 1972) at the 17th like a man: by hitting the pin with a 1-iron (a 1-iron!), not with some lucky-a$$ chip shot that probably would have run 15 feet past if it hadn't gone in the hole! Watson's famous shot will get a lot of air play the next few days, and it may be more than Jack can take.

A relatively new course less than an hour from my house could be awarded the 2017 U.S. Open! Actually, this is considered quite likely to happen, as naturally beautiful Erin Hills, in the tiny town of Erin, Wisconsin (outside Milwaukee), is the odds-on favorite for that honor. An announcement is expected on Wednesday, and we'll have more to say about the course – which has a surprisingly complicated history – if and when the Open bid comes to pass.

UPDATE: As Mike comments below, Erin Hills has indeed been selected for the 2017 U.S. Open!

Someone could choke worse than Jean Van de Velde. Wait ... that already happened, a couple days ago at the St. Jude Classic, where Robert Garrigus, a true journeyman, stood on the 18th tee on Sunday with a three-shot lead – and then lost his mind. Perhaps it compromises your brain function when every drop of sweat in your body has leaked into the seat of your pants. (In fairness to Mr. VdV, I've always thought he got something of a bad rap for his Open Championship meltdown. But we'll save that discussion for a future post.)

A 13-year-old could get picked out of the crowd to caddy for a practice round. Wait ... that already happened too! A great story. Kudos to amateur Russell Henley for giving a kid the opportunity of a lifetime.

Steve Stricker could win the U.S. Open! I know, I know ... The Whiffler is a hopelessly biased sucker. But Stricker's been flying below the radar a bit lately, thanks to his recent injury (which he seems to have recovered from). And that can only help him on the big stage of the U.S. Open. Besides, I have to stand by my prediction from earlier this year – which in retrospect was kinda wishy-washy. But I still say that IF Stricker wins a major this year, his best chance would be here. (Image: Stricker with the trophy he won at the 2010 Northern Trust Open. PeterMillar.com)

Half-Decades of Dominance: Arnold Palmer

2010-06-10T07:03:00.003-05:00

One in a Series

Fifty years ago this month, Arnold Palmer hit the most famous shot of his career – indeed, one of the most famous shots in golf history: a driver to the green of the first hole of the final round of the U.S. Open at Cherry Hills. The shot – and the winning round of 65 it set in motion – cemented Arnold's reputation as a daring, dashing, hard-charging, balls-out dynamo of a golfer. It was the moment he truly became The King, the best golfer on earth.

What if Arnie had played it safe? Not just on Saturday's final round (they played 36 on Saturday in those days), but all week. He had tried to drive that first green in each of the first three rounds and paid the price for it. The world will never know, of course. But it could easily be argued that if Arnie had played the 346-yard downhill, dog-leg par-4 with brains instead of brawn, he wouldn't have needed to mount such a sensational 7-shot comeback in the final round.

Maybe, maybe not. But Arnold Palmer was not raised to play it safe. (Image: Arnold Palmer flings his visor after sinking his final putt at Cherry Hills in 1960. John G. Zimmerman, SI, via sportsillustrated.cnn.com)

The story of Arnold Palmer's humble beginnings is well known. Born in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, in 1929, Palmer had a club in his hands at a very early age. His father, Milford Jerome "Deacon" Palmer, was chief groundskeeper and head professional at the local country club. And even though he basically grew up on a golf course, his early life was not one of privilege. Latrobe was a small town, and in those days, golf professionals were still regarded as little more than hired help – as evidenced by Deacon's dual role at the club.

Young Arnie learned the game from the man most people called "Deke" – whose methods reflected his no-nonsense approach to life and work. "Hit it hard, boy," Arnold says Deke instructed him. "Go find it and hit it hard again." By the time he was 5, the legend goes, he was hitting the ball hard enough that the ladies of the club would pay him a nickel to hit their balls over the creek on the sixth hole – 120 yards out.

His well-earned confidence often bordered on cockiness. The ability to walk that fine line between the two would would serve him well during his competitive career. As a boy, his caddy friends would often say, "I'm Walter Hagen" or "I'm Bobby Jones" as they fantasized their way around the course. Palmer, by contrast, would simply declare, "I'm Arnold Palmer."

And therein lies the key to much of Palmer's success. Perhaps the most powerful weapon in championship golf is the ability to say to yourself: "I'm the best player in the world and everyone else on the course knows it." For the early years of the 1960s, that ability was a big club in Arnold Palmer's bag.

From 1960-1962, Palmer won five major championships (two Masters, two Open Championships, and one U.S. Open) and finished second in three others. He was the leading money winner and PGA Player of the year in 1960 and 1962. In 1963, he won no major titles, but claimed seven other PGA Tour victories, including the prestigious Los Angeles Open and Western Open. And he was again the tour's leading money winner.

In 1964 Palmer claimed the last of his seven major championships by winning the Masters for the fourth time in seven years. By then he had lost that big club, his undisputed claim to professional golf's throne, to a young man named Nicklaus. And with that potent weapon missing from his arsenal, Arnie and his hard-charging style would never enjoy quite the same level of success he had previously. But oh, what a reign he enjoyed at the top!

Palmer's record surely speaks for itself. But the man they call The King meant – and continues to mean – so much more to the game of golf than can be measured by scores, championships, and awards.

Arnold's greatest contribution to golf had as much to do with timing as ability. He burst onto the scene just as television was taking root in the hearts and minds of the American public, and Palmer became the perfect leading man as a new kind of drama unfolded on the small screen. By 1960, nearly 90 percent of American households had TV, and a great many of them had tuned in to watch CBS's telecast of Palmer's thrilling Master's victory that year. Arnold birdied the final two holes to win by a stroke – and a star was born.

   Palmer didn't just play a golf course, he attacked it. He was fit, handsome, and charming, with a magnetic personality neither the galleries nor the TV audiences could resist. No one has ever connected with fans the way Palmer does before or since. (Image: Arnold Palmer at the height of his powers in 1962. Sports Illustrated.)
   It wasn't just golf in America that Arnold gave a shot in the arm. In 1960, following his famous victory in that year's U.S. Open, Palmer crossed the pond to play in the Open Championship (known to most Americans as the British Open). Today it is commonplace for top golfers to make that trip, but in 1960 (which happened to be the tournament's 100th anniversary year), most top Americans didn't think the trip across the Atlantic was worth the effort. It was a long, expensive journey with not much money at stake. Plus, there was the not-so-small matter that everyone – from the defending champion on down – had to get through the qualifying rounds just to take part. So there was no guarantee you'd even make it to the first tee.
   But golf's new bright light felt the tournament, with its long and rich history, deserved to have the top Americans in the field. There was also enticement of what Palmer himself dubbed the new "Grand Slam": the Masters, U.S. Open, Open Championship, and PGA Championship. With the 1960 Masters and U.S. Open trophies already on his mantle, he wanted to take a shot at winning them all in one year.
   Palmer made the journey to much fanfare, but narrowly missed the third leg of the Slam, finishing second at the Old Course to Australian Kel Nagle by a single stroke. His mere presence, however, helped return the championship to true major status. And his disappointment with his near-miss was no doubt tempered by his subsequent victories in 1961 and '62. Eventually, the British fans would embrace Palmer in a way they had not embraced an American since Bobby Jones' historic victories there more than three decades earlier.
   That 1962 win no doubt also helped take some of the sting out of his loss earlier that year to 22-year-old Jack Nicklaus. It was the first major professional victory for the man some called "Fat Jack." Nicklaus didn't just beat Palmer, he wore him down in his own back yard (in the face of hostile fans) in Oakmont, Pennsylvania, just miles from his boyhood home in Latrobe. It was a turning point; not so much a passing of the torch by Palmer as a seizing of it by Nicklaus. But the most-potent weapon in golf now belonged to the pharmacist's boy from Columbus, Ohio.

Palmer wasn't quite done yet, of course. He captured the last of his major titles with his fourth Masters green jacket in 1964. It was fitting that his last major would come at Augusta National, a layout that suited his aggressive style (much as it suits Phil Mickelson's game today). And he went on to win 16 more individual PGA Tour titles – as well as a few "team" titles (which were more common back then) partnering with his would-be nemesis, Jack Nicklaus. The successful pairing is testament to the mutual respect and friendship the two men shared, even in the face of their fierce on-course rivalry. (Image: Palmer receives his fourth green jacket from Nicklaus, the 1963 champ. augusta.com)
Today, no one can match Palmer's standing in the game. He remains the one true "King," respected and admired as no one short of Nicklaus – and truly beloved as no other.

Half-Decade of Dominance: 1960-1964

Major wins/appearances: 6/19 (31.6%)
    Masters: 1, T2, 1, T9, 1
    U.S. Open: 1, T14, 2, 2, T5
    Open Championship: 2, 1, 1, T26, DNP
    PGA Championship: T7, T5, T17, T40, T2
Top 5: 13/19 (68.4%)
Top 10: 15/19 (78.9%)

Career

Seven major professional championships

    4 Masters (1958, '60, '62, '64)
    1 U.S. Open (1960)
    2 Open Championships (1961, '62)
One U.S. Amateur Championship (1954)

Sources/Recommended reading
A Golfer's Life, by Arnold Palmer with James Dodson.
Arnie and Jack: Palmer, Nicklaus, and Golf's Greatest Rivalry, by Ian O'Connor.
The Eternal Summer: Palmer, Nicklaus, and Hogan in 1960, Golf's Golden Year, by Curt Sampson.
Jenkins at the Majors: Sixty Years of the World's Best Golf Writing, from Hogan to Tiger, by Dan Jenkins.

Something Lighter

2010-06-04T21:28:00.000-05:00

Let's take a break from this heavy stuff with a little whiffle for "all you mini-van families out there ..."

And for those who might want a little more God (and dog) in their day, check out "God and Dog" (if you're a dog lover, try not to cry).

Next post: Arnold Palmer. I promise.

A "whiffle" is a post "light or insignificant" in nature and that may not have anything to do with golf.

God and Golf

2010-05-31T22:21:00.006-05:00

Let's start with Zach Johnson, who on Sunday won the Crowne Plaza Invitational at Colonial. Walking off the 18th green, he had this to say to CBS's Peter Kostis:

I feel honored. They say everything's big in Texas, but I know there's one thing bigger and that's my God. And I want to lift this up to Him and give Him the glory, because the peace and the talent that he's given me I don't deserve. But I'm very thankful. (Image: Scott Halleran/Getty Images, via Golf.com)

Earlier this year, Golf magazine "editor-at-large" Connell Barrett mentioned Johnson in a list of 10 "new rules" for 2010 at his "Flyers" blog at Golf.com. In fact, he took advantage of the opportunity to rip Christians not once in that column, but twice.

A few days before, conservative commentator Brit Hume, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, urged Tiger Woods to "turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world." (Video here.) Now, make of that comment what you will. But here's what Barrett had to say (in "new rule" #6):

Brit Hume must lay off the assholier-than-thou act. The Fox News Bible thumper suggested Tiger convert from Buddhism to Christianity to fix his cheatin' heart, a shockingly dumb comment. Brit, did you learn nothing from Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder? "Never go full retard."

The irony is, in rule #3 in the same piece, Barrett wrote that people should "[s]top telling the press to leave Tiger alone. He's fair game. A public figure by choice. What two people do in the privacy of a church parking lot is everyone's business."

So, apparently Barrett thinks it's OK to go after Tiger to make jokes about him, but if you offer him some sincere advice about how he might improve himself, you're an a**hole and a retard.

Later, for his final "new rule," Barrett wrote: "Tour pros may no longer credit the Almighty for a victory." To elaborate, he turned to "comedian/golf nut" Lewis Black, who had this to say:

I hate that .... I remember watching the Masters the year Zach Johnson won. I was rooting for him. He was a great story, this underdog. Then he opens his mouth, and it's God this and that. I said, 'Noooooo! Not another one!' Sorry, Zach, but God wasn't with you on the back nine—he was busy helping hurricane victims, where he was needed. You know, God stuff!

I understand that you might not share Johnson's beliefs, and even that you might not appreciate him proclaiming them after a victory. But I really don't understand the hostility. Where's the "tolerance" everybody always says you're supposed to have?

I think at least part of it comes from a misunderstanding of how guys like Johnson "mix" golf and faith. There's a scene in The Simpsons where Bart and Todd Flanders – son of the Simpsons' annoying born-again Christian neighbor Ned – are about to square off in the finals of a miniature golf tournament. Homer spots Ned and his family praying before the match. "Hey, Flanders!" Homer taunts. "It's no use praying. I already did the same thing and we can't both win!" But then Flanders explains that he was actually praying that nobody would get hurt.

And that's where I imagine Lewis Black's complaint lies. He thinks, "Why would God care who wins a stupid golf tournament when there is so much suffering going on in the world?" For one thing, if we take his complaint at face value (we should remember he's a comedian), Black clearly does not believe in God's "omni-ness," that is, His omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He's putting finite limits on God's ability to multi-task, to use a modern, non-theological term.

But his larger objection, I suspect, is the idea that Johnson thinks God might want him to win more than the other guy. I will acknowledge here that there are probably well-intending Christian athletes who believe that if they pray hard enough and sincerely enough that balls will bounce their way and victories will result. But I don't think that Johnson fits that category, and he expressed as much in the press room after the tournament. When asked what it was like to play with good friend Ben Crane in the final round he replied:

We've been good friends for years. Our families are good friends. We are both Christians, so we had a lot in common. Walking with him today [at] Colonial on Sunday was great. It was an honor because we're so close. I pray for him and he prayed for me. I'm not saying that's why we play well, but we pray for peace and contentment. I think there is a lot of truth to that.

In a comment to my review of the book Straight Down the Middle, RobT said, "I personally don't think religion and sports mix too well. But spirituality/meditation, which is what I think he's getting at, does apply to sports better." And here's a mistake a lot of people make. Or, maybe call it a "misconception." (Image: Straight Down the Middle, by Josh Karp; Chronicle Books, 2010)

I think RobT's definitions are probably different than my own. Many people think of "religion" as the formal practice of a spiritual life. As RobT seems to, they separate it from "spirituality." It's what you do on Sunday (or Saturday, as the case may be), in a specific way, as opposed to how you live your life and relate to the supernatural (or however you define it) in a more general way. Religion is outward; spirituality is inward. But when it's real, the Christian "religion," the Christian faith, affects all aspects of your life.

Years ago I had what you might call a religious conversion: I recommitted my faith in Jesus Christ and made the practice of Christianity a central focus of my life. And an interesting thing happened (actually, a lot of interesting things happened, but only one of them had anything to do with golf): I suddenly started playing the best golf of my life. It wasn't because I started going to church on Sunday. It wasn't because God was guiding my shots or altering my swing. And it certainly wasn't because I was praying to shoot lower scores (the thought never even occurred to me).

It was happening because I was at peace: with God, with the world, with myself. Suddenly, golf wasn't as important to me anymore. In his comment, RobT quotes the author: "What is the balance between caring and not caring? How do you care yet throw caution to the wind at the same time? Gain control by giving it up?" This is what my newfound faith enabled me to do: care less and give up control. Previously, I had too much of my self-worth tied up in being (or trying to be) a good golfer, which made bad shots sometimes feel like little personal tragedies. And this is not the mindset you want to have on the golf course! When God gave my life more meaning, it took a lot of my on-course tension away and freed me to play better – very suddenly – by probably at least five shots a round.

I'll be the first to admit that this initial "surge" of inner peace wore off after a while, at least in terms of how it helps me on the golf course. I still get uptight sometimes when I play; I still try too hard on occasion. Maybe even frequently. But I'm able to let go of bad shots and bad rounds much better than I used to. And I enjoy golf more than I did when it held a too-lofty position in my life.

Call it religion if you want, call it spirituality if you prefer. I call it the focus of my life. And that doesn't change – if I can help it – whether I'm off the course or on it.

And if guys like Connell Barrett and Lewis Black can't appreciate that, then, well ... I'll just pray that no one gets hurt.

UPDATE: The fine Armchair Golf Blog has posted a condensed version of this post here.

Tell Me What You Think ...

2010-05-25T09:16:00.005-05:00

... of the new banner picture. Here's the old one – which do you prefer?

Straight Shooter: A Book Review

2010-05-21T06:37:00.007-05:00

When Tiger Woods stood in front of that now-infamous blue curtain at PGA Tour headquarters in February and told the world he would recommit to Buddhism as part of his new self-improvement regimen, author Josh Karp must have thought his prayers had been answered. Or ... that karma was shining down upon him. Or ... whatever one says in the Buddhist realm when good fortune befalls you.

Because suddenly the golf world was talking about Buddha for the first time since ... ever? And Buddhism, along with the search for inner peace and enlightenment, are central themes of Karp's new book, Straight Down the Middle: Shivas Irons, Bagger Vance, and How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Golf Swing. (Image: Straight Down the Middle, by Josh Karp; Chronicle Books, 2010)

So as far as publicity hooks are concerned, he's got that going for him. Which is nice.

After being called a "new soul" (as opposed to an "old soul," or someone with wisdom and depth beyond his years) by a friend of his wife's, Karp decided his inner being needed some aging, so he set out on a journey of enlightenment:

My quest, the quest that became this book, was one toward two goals – better golf and a better life via the non-traditional Eastern route. I would sample various Eastern approaches to golf and life – meditation, martial arts, and all manner of instruction both on the course and off – hoping to lower my handicap and find my true, calm, happy self, or vice versa.

In Straight Down the Middle, Karp searches for golfing Nirvana (as opposed to the flannel-clad, grunge rock variety) by traveling around the country (not to mention Scotland) to sit at the feet of a wide range of offbeat golf teachers, gurus, spiritualists, and even a sensei. He was asking, essentially: Can inner peace lower your golf score? As a firm believer that the answer is "yes," I was immediately captivated by the topic.

Karp chronicles his quest with a lively and self-effacing voice that is part Rick Reilly and part Dave Barry, with an anxiety-ridden dose of Woody Allen thrown in for good measure. While the Reilly/Barry component gives the book its life, the Woody-ness supplies the heart. It's Karp's openness and honesty about his anxiety and insecurities that ground the book, give it some real weight, and make it more than an entertaining lark (though entertaining it most certainly is).

Along this metaphorical "Road to Utopia" (Bing Crosby plays a recurring role), Karp encounters a cast of compelling characters, who come alive through his vivid descriptions. Take Coach Stephen, a practitioner of the self-styled "Renegade Mindset Technique" (an offshoot of something called the "Emotional Freedom Technique"), with whom Karp trained in Columbus, Ohio:

[H]e's got that energy that the truly healthy – and particularly the truly healthy that don't have kids – possess. His training methods are infused with what he calls a "need for speed." His healthy lifestyle is not something he lords over you, but you get the sense that everything he consumes is organic and that each bit of food, albeit delicious, has a precise purpose that it quickly fulfills when it enters the bloodstream, where his body maximizes the nutrients then dumps out the waste in neat little packages.

I was a bit skeptical at the outset that some of these people were simply too far out there to take seriously. But I felt reassured when I realized that Karp himself shared much of my skepticism. He approached each leg of his journey with both an open mind and, in many ways, a thoroughly Western attitude. He didn't blindly accept the teaching of any one expert as the whole truth, but gleaned what he could from each and applied what worked for him. In the end, over the course of about a year-and-a-half, he lowered his handicap by nearly seven strokes, from 18 to just over 11. He also describes how he used those teachings to improve his outlook on life in general.

By far my favorite chapter was the one entitled, "Have the Jews Not Suffered Enough?" Here, in the context of playing 18 holes with a rabbi, Karp opens up about his own Jewishness, his decidedly "unorthodox" spiritual upbringing ("... my parents conducted some kind of bizarre religious experiment by sending me, their first born, to a Conservative temple for Hebrew and Sunday school"), and his misgivings and doubts about traditional, Judeo-Christian religion. It's not that I identify with where he lands through all this, but I understand how he got where he is and appreciate and enjoyed his straightforward and honest discussion about religion.
I also enjoyed his account of an awkward conversation he had with his father, whom he describes as "a pretty nontraditional, open-minded guy":

Standing in my living room I explained that perhaps one of the most direct paths to a better score is not to keep score. I told him that giving up results completely would free your mind and your potential – and by doing that, results would usually follow. I tried to explain it several different ways. Each time I was met with the same expression, which I'd never before seen on his face – as the wheels in his mind visibly turned, attempting to get his brain around the concept of not keeping score. As I spoke, his head shook involuntarily back and forth as if to say, "NO! NO! NO!!!! This goes against the laws of man!" Then he spoke.
"But that's the whole point, isn't it? Shooting the lowest score. I mean what's the point otherwise?" he asked. Then added, gravely, "I'm going to need a bit of time with this one."

As someone who has a hard time not keeping a stroke-by-stroke tally running continuously in my head – even though I know it would help me not to – I can completely relate to his father's point of view. Laws of man, indeed.
Yet this chapter also gives rise to my only substantial criticism: I wish Karp had given the Christian perspective a few more pages as part of this process. In fairness, he treats the "Jesus is my homeboy crowd" very respectfully, and later in the book acknowledges that he loves going to church with his wife: "I find Catholic services soothing on some level that I have never experienced in Judaism." And it also seems he has read his share of Christian-themed golf books. Yet he chose not to discuss them in-depth or spend time with any sort of pastor, priest, parson, or pope as part of this book.
And that's fine. It's certainly his prerogative, and it's not the theme of this book. But it left me feeling as though the discussion was unfinished, as I know from personal experience how the peace that transcends all understanding can affect your golf game (even though it can be all too easy to lose touch with it in the face of a downhill 5-footer for bogey).

We'll save that discussion, however, for another post.

So while I can't personally recommend the Eastern spirituality approach to reaching golfing satori or finding lasting happiness, I'm happy to recommend Straight Down the Middle as an honest, wildly entertaining, and thought-provoking work.

But Tiger, if you're reading this, give me a call before you bust out the blue curtain again, OK? I have a few thoughts of my own on finding inner peace.

Josh Karp teaches journalism at Northwestern University and has written for Salon, Premiere, Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine, TimeOut New York, and other publications. He is also the author of A Futile and Stupid Gesture: How Doug Kenney and National Lampoon Changed Comedy Forever. He currently lives in Glencoe, Illinois, with his wife, Susan, and their four energetic sons.

UPDATE: The above-mentioned "another post" can be read here.

The State of Australia

2010-05-18T12:04:00.001-05:00

Whiffling Straits is proud to be joined once again by Australian professional golfer and golf journalist Grant Dodd, for an update on the state of Australian golf in America. Thanks for "coming back," Grant! I trust your red-eye flight on the Cyberspace Express (where they never charge extra for baggage, even the emotional kind) was a pleasant one. Now let's get right down to it ...

On Sunday, 29-year-old Aussie heart-throb Adam Scott returned to the PGA Tour winner's circle for the first time since 2008. By all accounts he's a very likable bloke and popular amongst his peers, so it's good to see him back on top. Did you ever have any doubt that he would be a winner again? To what do you attribute his recent struggles? And do you think he's back for good -- or is one win (plus the Australian Masters, of course) just one win? (Image: AP, via golf.com)

Actually, it was the Australian Open, but what's a title between friends! I always thought that he would win again, but I wasn't sure at what level. He seemed to be suffering such a crisis of confidence, particularly with the putter, that I wondered whether he had contracted the yips. And as Sam Snead said, "When you've got 'em, you've got 'em". Very few guys, Bernhard Langer excepted, ever truly excel at this game once they have caught the yips so I'm pleased to see that this wasn't the case.

At his best, he is one of the most dynamic players in the world, a gifted ball striker who most definitely has the potential to spend the next decade in the world top ten. It really depends on his hunger and drive, and I can't speak for that.

[Note: One of the reasons I like getting Grant's perspective is that here in the States, it's all too easy sometimes to get tunnel vision about American tournaments and not fully appreciate what's happening elsewhere in the world – as evidenced by my confusing the Australian Open and the Australian Masters (which Tiger Woods in fact won in 2009, his last victory before all the unpleasantness hit the fan). So thanks for straightening me out, Grant!]

With two seconds so far this year, Robert Allenby seems on the verge of a breakthrough win. What will it take, do you think, to get him over the hump and start winning on the big stage?

I think Robert would like to know the answer to that as well. He's a supremely talented ball striker, a guy who hits as many perfectly struck shots as anyone on tour, but again there is the question of putting. As soon as you see someone gripping it with the claw you know that all is not well. His putting stats have improved markedly this year but if you have a weakness on the greens it largely manifests itself when the pressure is at its highest, and that is usually down the stretch on Sunday afternoon. He did it in style in Australia when he won the PGA at the end of 2009 (also don't forget that he won Sun City as well), so he knows how to get the job done. To win in America, I think it comes down to Robert not beating himself.

When last we checked in with Geoff Ogilvy he had just won in Hawaii – again – to start the 2010 season off strong – again. Previously, you mentioned that Geoff has all the tools to be a Top-3 caliber player, and whether he is able to reach that level of play most likely depends on his desire. He hasn't done much since – other than welcome a third child to the family, of course! How much do you think Geoff's family priorities have "gotten in the way" of him succeeding more? (And for the record, I'm inclined to respect a golfer all the more when he puts family ahead of golf.) (Image: pgatour.com.)

Again, I can't speak for how Geoff's family situation is affecting his golf. He's probably having the time of his life. Having a family is a great counterpoint to the obsessiveness of professional golf. Pro golf is a selfish pursuit, and one thing you can't be if you want to be a father and a husband is self-obsessed. No doubt he has some adjustments to make with time management but he's still playing good golf, in the top 20 in the world and is something of a streaky player. When he gets hot he can go on a tear and he's odds on to do that at some stage this year.

Let's not forget Stuart Appleby. We haven't heard much from him in recent years it seems. He's almost the same age as Allenby (Appleby just turned 39; Allenby will be 39 in July) but it feels like Appleby's been around a lot longer. Does Stuart have it in him to win again?

Certainly. He's strong mentally, very committed and driven, and still has some good golf in front of him. The equipment change he made a couple of years back really hurt his game, and he took a long time to adjust. When you have played the same clubs and ball all your career it is a big risk to go to something new, and it really didn't work out for him. There are some signs of life at the moment though, and the two rounds (66-66) he shot on Thursday and Friday at the Australian Open last year in appalling conditions was some of the best golf of his career. It would be a brave person who'd write him off.

One thing we're definitely not here at Whiffling Straits is brave, so we'll refrain from writing Appleby's epitaph for the time being. And we'll also work at knowing the difference between the Australian Masters and the Australian Open. In addition, we will continue to marvel at the idea that two of the top Australian golfers were born just two months apart with last names that are so easy to confuse. Because that's just weird.

Thank you again, Grant, for lending your time and expertise to Whiffling Straits, where you always get what you paid for – sometimes even a little bit more. As a small token of appreciation from our small but dedicated staff, please enjoy this complimentary photo of two young boys pondering the untimely demise of an unfortunate mini-golfer:

Grant Dodd played professional golf on the Australasia, Europe, and Asia tours, winning the Slovenian Open on the European Challenge Tour in 1999. He is also a writer for Australian Golf Digest, a golf commentator for Australian television, and a passionate wine enthusiast. To learn more about him, please visit the Grant Dodd blog, or click here to see a collection of his golf writings.

The Matter with Tiger Woods

2010-05-09T20:55:00.007-05:00

Could it get any worse for Tiger Woods? Just one week after missing the cut, badly, at the Quail Hollow Championship, Tiger Woods was showing at least a few signs of life, heading into the weekend at -3 in The Players Championship. After carding a 1-under 71 on Saturday, Woods withdrew after just seven holes on Sunday, citing a neck injury that's been bothering him since before the Masters. (Image: Cover of Tiger: The Real Story, by Steve Helling)
     "I've been playing with a bad neck for quite a while," Woods said. "They want me to go get a picture [MRI] on it next week. I might have a bulging disk."
     No word thus far on how serious the injury might be, or whether it's related to the world's #1 ranked golfer's now-infamous Thanksgiving night joy-ride. But speculation is likely to run wild.
     And this comes on the heels of a new unauthorized biography by a reporter for People magazine. And a National Enquirer report that Woods 'fessed up to sleeping with as many as 120 different women while married to Elin. And widely circulating rumors that Elin and the kids have high-tailed it to Sweden, with a divorce filing imminent. No matter what you think of Woods and his self-made mess, it's hard not to feel at least a little bit sorry for him.
     What fascinates me most about L'affaire Tiger Woods is looking back in time for clues about whether we might have been able to see this all coming. One of the things that's so unusual about his historic rise is the way he had been groomed since he could walk to become the greatest golfer in the world – or even history – and yet seemed to come out of it all more or less OK. Like child stars gone bad, these things have a way of not working out very well. Just ask former USC quarterback Todd Marinovich.
      But Woods had seemed to have weathered all that. He emerged from adolescence not only as the #1 golfer in the world, but also, or so it seemed, so ... well-adjusted.
     Where did he go wrong?
     I dunno. And does it even matter? My only conclusion is that spending your life chasing after the world's adulation and glory is ultimately a fruitless task. "Everything is meaningless," once wrote the world's richest, most successful man.
     But such a well-documented life leaves a long paper trail. What follows is a list of links to and short excerpts from articles about Tiger Woods from various stages of his career. Many of them are quite fascinating when read with the inevitable 20-20 hindsight. Read them as you see fit and draw your own conclusions if you wish. Just don't think you'll be getting any closer to the real truth about Tiger Woods than anybody else who tries.

Rick Reilly, Sports Illustrated, "Goodness Gracious, He's a Great Ball of Fire," 1995:

When the boy was six, he asked his parents for the subliminal tape. In the parents' plan to raise the greatest golfer who ever lived, the boy's mind had to be trained. The tape was all rippling brooks and airy flutes on top and chest-thumpers underneath: MY DECISIONS ARE STRONG! I DO IT ALL WITH MY HEART!

Sports Illustrated, "The Chosen One," 1996:

[Earl Woods] said, "Please forgive me...but sometimes I get very emotional...when I talk about my son.... My heart...fills with so...much...joy...when I realize...that this young man...is going to be able...to help so many people.... He will transcend this game...and bring to the world...a humanitarianism...which has never been known before. The world will be a better place to live in...by virtue of his existence...and his presence.... I acknowledge only a small part in that...in that I know that I was personally selected by God himself...to nurture this young man...and bring him to the point where he can make his contribution to humanity.... This is my treasure.... Please accept it...and use it wisely.... Thank you."

GQ, "The Man. Amen." 1997:

It is an interesting question, one that was made sharper when Tiger looked at me and said, "Hey, you can't write this."
"Too late," I told him, and I was dead serious, but everybody laughed because everybody knows there's no place in the gospel of Tiger for these sorts of jokes. And Tiger gave the photographer his hour, and we were back in the car with Vincent and heading back toward Tiger's mother's house. "Well, what did you think of the shoot?" Tiger asks, yawning, because being ferried by a limousine and being handled by beautiful women and being photographed for a magazine cover that will get him laid 296 times in the next year, if he so chooses, can be very exhausting work. "The key to it," he says, "is to give them a time and to stick to it. If I say I'm there for an hour, I'm there, on time, for an hour. If they ask for me, I say, 'Hell, f--- no.' And I'm out of there.

Esquire, "The Passion of Tiger Woods" 2003:

"He's held up to a standard that's almost beyond ridiculous," said Bob Wood, president of Nike Golf. "Nobody should feel sorry for Tiger, but he's exposed at a level that's really extraordinary. Anytime I'm with him, it's like being with Elvis. The crush, the pressure, is unbelievable."

Esquire, "Where to Find the Salvation of Tiger Woods," 2009 (follow-up to article above):

And yet I haven't been able to celebrate his bad fortune, because, earlier this year — on Mother's Day, in fact — my brother was caught in the same kind of web. His wife nabbed him cheating when she saw his loving text messages to a (much younger) colleague, of all the sordid clichés. I've watched firsthand the kinds of hysterical scenes that played out in Woods's driveway; I've stood on the edge of those impact craters. My brother's infidelity has torn our entire family apart.

Golf Digest, "What Happened?" 2010:

I first met Tiger in 1990 in the parking lot at Coto de Caza, a Southern California course not far from his family home. I was doing a profile for Golf Digest on Woods, then a 14-year-old prodigy, who in short order would win three consecutive U.S. Junior Amateurs. He arrived with his father, whom I had spoken with on the phone. Earl was friendly and informal. He called me "Stud," which seemed odd on several levels, but not after I got used to his chauvinistic Army humor. After shaking hands, Tiger hung back, barely saying a word.

UPDATE: "Could it get any worse for Tiger Woods?" Since I originally posed that largely rhetorical question, Tiger's swing coach, Hank Haney, has resigned, and now his infamous Canadian knee doctor, Anthony Galea, has been officially charged with illegally treating pro football players in the U.S. with unapproved drugs. Sounds like it's getting worse.

What a Weekend!

2010-05-04T06:14:00.003-05:00

RORY! On the verge of missing his third straight cut in what has been a frustrating year so far, 20-year-old Rory McIlroy on Friday hit a 206-yard 4-iron to six feet on the 7th hole (his 16th) to make eagle – and the cut on the number. Two days later, McIlroy, just two days shy of his 21st birthday, put the finishing touches on a magnificent 10-under 62 (32-20) to claim the Quail Hollow Championship by four strokes over Phil Mickelson. He also set a course record by two full strokes, going 5-under over the final five holes on one of the toughest closing stretches in professional golf. "It surpasses everything by a mile," McIlroy said after the round, which vaulted him into the international spotlight leading into this week's Players Championship at TPC Sawgrass. By claiming what may well prove to be his breakthrough win, young Rory keeps alive the Whiffler's earlier prediction that he "by year's end will be regarded as the favorite to unseat Tiger (or possibly Phil) as the #1 player in the world." (Thanks, Rory.) (Image: Scott Halleran/Getty Images, via Golf.com.)

PHIL Speaking of Phil the Thrill, by finishing second, with a strong performance that likely would merited a win if not for Rory's heroics – and with Tiger ignominiously missing the cut by more than he missed some fairways – Mickelson put himself in position to claim the world #1 ranking for the first time in his career. With a win at the Players Championship, Phil would move into the top spot if Tiger finishes outside the top five. The way he looked on Friday, Tiger is about as likely to finish fifth or better as he is to give Elin a Mother's Day gift subscription to the National Enquirer.

TIGER By nearly all accounts, the world's top-ranked golfer did something on Friday's back nine no one had ever seen him do before: he quit. "He never gives up, never gives in, never gives out and never gives anything away. Until Friday," wrote SI's Gary Van Sickle. In shooting a miserable 43 (to go with a front-side 36 for a 79 total), Tiger's lack of effort was palpable. No one knows what was really going on inside his head, of course, but this would seem to lend credence to the Whiffler's theory that Tiger's on-course performance will suffer as long as his off-course life is in a state of upheaval. Many commentators point to Tiger's legendary focus when making the case that his golf game will bounce back readily, but the Whiffler thinks they're vastly underestimating how big a role inner peace can play.

RYO! Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, 18-year-old Ryo Ishikawa shot the lowest round ever recorded on a major professional golf tour: a 12-under 58. Though the course, the 6,545-yard Nagoya Golf Club in Togo, Japan, was not one you could argue was as tough a test as you would typically find on the PGA Tour, it was still an extremely impressive round. After all, it's not as if the rest of the field was anywhere near keeping pace. Ishikawa came from six strokes back on Sunday to win The Crowns by five. "I always dreamed of getting a score like this but didn't think I would do it so fast," he said. "It hasn't really sunk in yet, but I'm sure it will after a few days." His hair had no comment. (Image: AP/Kyodo News via examiner.com)

WHIFFLER! Not to toot my own horn or anything, but on Saturday morning, the Whiffler completed his first half-marathon (very slooooowly), at the 2nd Annual Illinois Marathon back in the Homeland. On Sunday, he played the beloved Orange Course (in a cart, duh) for the first time in years and nearly got that long-coveted 3 on the par-5 13th by hitting the pin from 65 yards out for a tap-in birdie. All in all, a very good weekend – both for young golfers and old bloggers. To God be the glory.

An "Obsolete" Rant

2010-04-23T17:22:00.009-05:00

"Are your clubs obsolete?" That's the question Golf Digest asks here, in an article about upgrading to the latest technology. It comes complete with a long list of clubs the magazine considers to be in various stages of obsolescence, including some models (especially drivers) released as recently as 2008. Obsolete? Really? (Image: The Whiffler Collection)

According to Merriam-Webster, the primary meaning of the word "obsolete" is: "no longer in use or no longer useful." Think of Beta format videotapes, computer floppy disks, and my size-34 pants. But "obsolete" can also mean: "of a kind or style no longer current." In other words, "old-fashioned." (Again, my pants come to mind.)

OK, fine. By that definition, some (or perhaps even all) of the clubs in my bag are indeed obsolete. But they still do the same job, the same way, as more modern golf implements: They propel the ball in the general direction of, and ultimately into, a 4.25-inch hole in the ground some distance away. They are both "useful" and "in use." Obsolete? No more so than my Popeil Pocket Fisherman.

Regular readers may have figured out by now that The Whiffler is pretty cheap – though I prefer to say "frugal," "fiscally conservative," or "tighter than John Daly's Lap-Band." How about "family rich, golf poor"? That is to say, golf is high on my list of passions but fairly low on the financial priority scale. I prefer to put my limited golf budget toward greens fees, par-3 rounds with the Golden Bear Cub, and pre-round donuts rather than new stuff.

And when I'm honest with myself, that's at the heart of my love/hate relationship with equipment. It occurred to me recently that if I had unlimited resources I would probably be a golf club junkie. But I don't, so instead I find myself mildly resentful of the ongoing golf technology revolution.

When I was a naive teen-age golf nut poring over the pages of Golf Digest, there were lots of gadgets and gizmos advertised in the back that were said to add yards to your tee shots and cut strokes from your score. I remember once pointing some of these things out to my dad, who replied, "Well, according to these ads, if you used this, this, this, and this, and added up all those claims, you'd hit the ball 400 yards and shoot 60 every time. And I don't think that's going to happen." My dad was in advertising, and he knew not to take every claim literally. It was a lesson I took to heart. (He also taught me the value of hard work. Thanks for trying, Dad.)

When it came to clubs, there were good ones and not-as-good ones, but I never felt I was at a significant disadvantage when competing with my older Walter Hagen irons and Johnny Miller woods. When I splurged and bought myself a set of Wilson Staff woods as a high-school graduation gift to myself (Chargers RULE! Class of '81! Wooooo!!!), I didn't necessarily expect them to improve my game. I bought them partly for the prestige of owning fine clubs (I admit) and also because it seemed like a good investment (it was). I fully expected to play them for a lifetime, or at least until they wore out.

Things started changing in 1991 with the introduction of Callaway's Big Bertha driver. With a relatively tiny head (by today's standards), measuring just 190cc in volume, it was the first salvo in the modern equipment wars – and perhaps the first driver to offer a true advantage over more traditional clubs. Before long, drivers were topping out at a balloonish 460cc (now the legal limit) with price tags in the hundreds of dollars – for one club! I paid about $140 – $335 in 2010 dollars – for my set of four Staff woods: Driver, 3-, 4-, and 5-woods (set of four puffball knit headcovers not included). (Image: dwquailgolf.com)

Bottom line is I have two basic problems with the modern equipment revolution:

1) As discussed, the $$$. Though I don't play any real competitive golf anymore (just the annual White Lake Classic – or as I like to call it, the "Fifth Major"), it bothers me that you have to invest so much in clubs just to play on a level fairway. The good news is that things seem to be leveling out at least a little, and there are plenty of ways for the smart shopper to find only slightly "obsolete" clubs for fairly reasonable prices. Because the technology is advancing so rapidly (or so "they" would have us believe) new clubs do not hold their value well. That's bad if you're selling, great if you're buying. As long as you're willing to be a few years behind the curve.

2) I don't think that making the game easier necessarily makes it better. It's supposed to be hard. Last year at our church golf outing, everyone had to tee off with an old-fashioned wooden driver on one hole. Surprisingly, I hit it pure – and watched in horror as the ball banana'ed drastically from left to right. Just like I hit 'em in the old days. It made me realize that as much as I like to think I hit the ball a lot straighter than I used to, and score at least as well as ever, I have to admit that a lot of the improvement is due to modern metal woods and perimeter-weighted irons.

And there are still a few holdouts. I'm one. Even though my classic Tommy Armour Silver Scot irons (purchased used, of uncertain vintage) are apparently so obsolete they're not even listed in the Golf Digest list, they still seem to do a decent job of propelling the ball toward the hole with reasonable consistency (as evidenced by the WLC traveling trophy hanging on my office wall*).

And take a look at this item (also at golfdigest.com) about Champions Tour player Mike Reid. He's been playing his TaylorMade fairway woods since the early 1990s, and claims he hasn't found any that are better. (Image, below: One of Reid's ancient fairway woods. Look at the worn-out sweet spot. If you can hit the ball that consistently, who needs modern technology?)

If you want to go even further back in time, check out the Society of Hickory Golfers, dedicated to the promotion and encouragement of golf played with hickory-shafted clubs. I love it! Wouldn't it be fun to see a bunch of pros play in a tournament like this? As I understand it, swinging hard is poison in hickory golf, and it'd be nice to see a tournament where the smooth-swinging short hitters have a distinct advantage.

Back to the Golf Digest article for a moment. I also object to this sort of language: "... a staggering number of golfers continue to play with outdated equipment – irons and woods that with each year become increasingly ill-suited to helping them hit the ball farther down the fairway and closer to the hole."

"Increasingly ill-suited"? Are these clubs made of uranium or something? Do they gradually degrade on a molecular level as they age, like Sergio Garcia, in a way that renders them ineffective? Only by comparison to new clubs – which is not the same thing as being "ill-suited" to the task of hitting a golf ball.

Finally, the piece also links to a number of fairly amusing case studies – which make me feel a little better about the clubs in my own bag. One writer pokes some fun at Andrew Han of Burlingame, California, who swears he's going to hang on to his 34-year-old Lynx irons until he breaks 80. Is this crazy or admirable? If he's not playing in tournaments, I lean toward the latter. After all, if your ultimate goal is to test yourself against yourself, doesn't it make sense to do it with the same (or similar) clubs? Maybe a new set of irons would shave a few strokes off his game, but there's diminishing satisfaction in that. You haven't really improved; only your equipment has.
It's also easy to imagine that golfers who obsess about their equipment may cost themselves a few strokes because of it. If you're never quite confident your clubs are "just right," you're ... well, never quite confident. When you've played the same clubs for a long time and aren't always thinking the grass may be greener on the other side of the pro shop, you can free yourself of those thoughts and that doubt and focus on what you can do to improve your game.

As an avowed capitalist (and someone who works in marketing), I understand that equipment company money fuels much of the golf world. Golf Digest no doubt pays many of its bills with dollars it receives to hawk the latest advancements. And that's fine. But it's also something to keep in mind when weighing the value of the advice they provide about your equipment choices.

Here's The Whiffler's advice: Don't be pressured by claims of "obsolescence" into buying new equipment you don't need (or can't afford). If you like buying new stuff and can do it without taking out a second mortgage or prying out your fillings and mailing them to webuygold.com, go for it. I'll try to keep my resentment to a minimum. But if the ancient clubs in your bag give you a sense of satisfaction and you enjoy playing with them, I say keep 'em – with pride! They're useful to you for as long as you keep them in use.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go de-oxidize my vast collection of 8-track tapes. It may take awhile.

*The trophy has become such a monstrosity over the years (the tradition is for each winner to add a memento to it) that none of the lovely but stubborn WLC wives will allow it to be displayed in their home.

A Volcanic Whiffle*

2010-04-19T22:17:00.005-05:00

Some absolutely stunning pictures of the Icelandic volcanic activity at boston.com. Just one small sample (click to enlarge):

Click here to see all 35. (Hat tip: The Corner)

UPDATE: More cool volcano photos (this time with the Northern Lights added) here.

* A "whiffle" is a post "light or insignificant" in nature and that may not have anything to do with golf.

On Taking Risks

2010-04-17T09:43:00.005-05:00

A few choice words from some legendary risk takers ...

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt: "Citizenship in a Republic"

Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

(Image: wikimediacommons.com)

UPDATE: Phil Capelle has marked the 100th anniversary of TR's fine speech (which is today!!) with a great post at capelleongolf.com.

"I think it's better to risk my life and to be a has-been than to never have been at all. Even though crippled and busted in half, it's better to have taken a chance to win a victory or suffer a defeat than to live like others do who will never know victory or defeat because they haven't had the guts to try either."

Evel Knievel: Sports Illustrated, September 2, 1974

(Image: Sports Illustrated)

"If you can see the ball you can probably hit it, and if you can hit it you can move it, and if you can move it you might be able to hole it out. So try. It is the trying that is fun."

Arnold Palmer: Sports Illustrated, August 9, 1965

(Image: John Zimmerman, Sports Illustrated, via golf.com)

"A great shot is when you pull it off. A smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it."

Phil Mickelson: post-Masters comments, April 11, 2010

(Image: brisbanetimes.com.au)

A bit of analysis ... I was half-way through a post about Phil Mickelson's risk-taking when the Masters happened. The words I was writing expressed the opinion that Phil the Thrill would need to learn to play smarter golf if he was going to win more major championships. I was comparing him to Tiger, who also makes spectacular shots, but who seems to take risks that are more calculated. Tiger, it seems to me, will ask himself "What if I miss?" before he tries a bold shot. That is, he knows when he pulls the trigger that even if the shot doesn't go exactly as planned, he's generally not going to get himself into worse trouble.

Phil ... not so much.

But my opinion has changed. Not that Phil doesn't make foolish choices sometimes; he does. But I no longer want Phil to change. Look at Arnold Palmer. A strong argument could be made that he would have won more several more major championships if he did not take so many risks. Two points: 1) You could also argue that he would never have been in position to win as many (he won seven professional majors, and one U.S. Amateur championship) if he toned down his aggression; and 2) more importantly, he wouldn't be Arnold Palmer! Without his aggressive style, he wouldn't have been the swashbuckling young shot-maker that set the golf world on fire in the late 1950s and early '60s – and brought the game to the masses in the process.

I no longer care how many more majors Phil wins. Rather, I don't care as much as I care about watching him continue to be Phil the Thrill. Let Tiger be the cold, calculating, never play a dumb shot, robotic foil to Phil's occasionally head-shaking on-course antics. Phil plays golf the way he does because, as Arnold says, it's the fun way to play. Fun for him, fun for us, fun for the game.

Let Phil be Phil. And hang on tight for an exciting ride into the 2010s!

Can Nice Guys Finish First?

2010-04-15T22:44:00.001-05:00

A special guest commentary ...

The Whiffler has invited me to contribute a guest commentary, and I'm honored to do so. I exchange periodic emails with Mr. Whiffler, and the prompting for this post came from a rhetorical question I asked in one particular email – something to the effect of: "Can't you be a nice guy and be a great athlete?"

Actually those were my exact words, voiced in frustration after the recent Masters. I'm not so happy with Tiger and his behavior, both on and off the course, and I know I'm not the only one. I find myself rooting for Phil to become great, despite his track record as what I might consider a lovable loser. Three Masters victories isn't exactly a losing record, but it seems like he has come close many more times than he has won. So back to the question – can you be a nice guy and be a great athlete? Two of the greatest athletes in our generation, Michael Jordan and Tiger, would seem to have personalities dominated more by drive, competitiveness, and ego, rather than empathy or compassion. But then there's Phil, who I'm sure has his faults, but seems to be more capable of being a nice guy on his way to winning than others.

Part of this question comes from my own experience as well. In my competitive sports history, I have encountered all sorts of personalities, and more than a few whose drive to win apparently came packaged with blinders to the feelings and needs of those around them. I would like to think that an athlete who was at peace with himself or herself, grounded, humble, and morally mature would have the advantage over the self-centered, immature, yet incredibly competitive one. But do they? Or is it really all on an individual basis, and generalizations are pointless and unfair?

     I really don't know the answer, and would be curious what the Whiffler and others think about both their personal experience and observations specifically regarding golfers. Until someone proves otherwise, I'm going to go on rooting for the nice guy. It may be my ego, but I can relate more to the nice guy than the win-at-all-costs type. And who knows, maybe someday, I'll be rooting for the new and improved Tiger! Until then, here's to becoming one of the greatest golfers ever, Phil.
     Thanks for the chance to contribute, Mr. Whiffler, and I look forward to reading your posts for a long time to come.
     Rob Twardock, Grayslake, IL

Rob Twardock, aka "the Glacier," is a gentleman, scholar, good friend, loving husband, devoted father, talented musician, and all-around great guy. He is also one of the four surviving original members of "The Mojo Daddies." He regularly loses to the Whiffler at golf, but not usually by very much.

Formerly Phony Phil

2010-04-14T18:56:00.003-05:00

Everything changed for me in 2003 – late 2003, or perhaps it was 2004. It took a while for the news to come out.

I had always thought of Phil Mickelson as something of a flashy phony. The turned-up collar. The "aw, shucks" grin and demeanor. I had read once that he put off turning pro for a year because he (and presumably his "people") had calculated he could make more endorsement money by building his amateur stats for another year. Staying in the spotlight for another season as a top amateur (he's the 1990 U.S. Amateur champion, a three-time NCAA champ, and won the 1991 Northern Telecom Open in Tucson while still at Arizona State) was viewed as a good investment. To me, this moved seemed cynical. It also signaled he must be a spoiled brat to be able afford to do it. (Image: David Cannon/Getty Images via golf.com)

As a pro, he won plenty of tournaments, but couldn't get over the hump with a major victory. Another reason to think he wasn't all he was cracked up to be. He was becoming rich and famous without becoming great.

In 2003 he hit the skids. Didn't a win a single tournament, let alone a major, and dropped to 38th in the world, after three years entrenched solidly at #2, behind Tiger. I figured maybe he was done.

And then I found out that in March of 2003, Phil's wife, Amy, had come very close to dying during the birth of their son, Evan (who also nearly died).

But what really got to me was ... he didn't tell anybody. At least not publicly. I really don't know why. Maybe he didn't want his family's personal trauma to become an excuse for his poor play. Maybe he felt it was nobody's business. Or maybe, he just couldn't, because the wound was too fresh and too deep. Whatever his reasons were, learning this put Phil, his young family, and his golf career in a very different light.

By then I had become a husband and father myself, so I was able to imagine more keenly what a scare that must have been, and how the shock waves could have traveled all the way to the golf course. It seemed surprising to learn he was so devoted to his family, but maybe I just hadn't been paying close enough attention. After all, this was the same Phil who carried a beeper during the 1999 U.S. Open and swore he would walk off the course if he received word that Amy had gone into labor – even though he was in contention until Payne Stewart sank his now-famous putt on the 72nd green.

And now an exciting an emotional Masters win, his third, with Amy in the gallery at the 18th green for the first time since last May, when she was first diagnosed with breast cancer. Her treatment is going well and the prognosis is good, but the ordeal has taken a lot out of her. For Phil to win a major under the circumstances is golf's biggest feel-good story in quite a while. (Image: Harry How/Getty Images, via orlandosentinel.com)

Poor Tiger. From his perspective, things couldn't have turned out much worse. To have his arch-rival win while providing such a stark contrast to his own situation has got to be a little hard to stomach. And he didn't help himself by being so curt in his post-round interviews. He had a golden opportunity to back up his promise of "change" by showing he knows how to be a gracious loser. But he apparently does not.
The whole thing seems to cement the storyline: Phil, good; Tiger, bad. But let's cut Tiger a little slack. He stepped into a pressure cooker, played incredibly well under the circumstances, and showed signs (such as signing some autographs for the first time in practically forever) that he's working becoming a better man. He showed he still has a long way to go, but it would be unrealistic to expect him to transform overnight.
It's also important to remember, I think, that only God knows what is truly in each man's heart. Would it be any more shocking to find out Phil is not everything we thought he was than it was to learn that about Tiger? History is littered with fallen heroes, and no man is immune from a potential fall from grace.

My greater concern with Tiger right now is that I can't shake this image of Elin back home, or somewhere in Sweden, shuffling a stack of divorce papers in a rage that Tiger announced his return to golf only weeks after giving the world the impression he may not come back for quite a while. But he said (again) after the Masters that he doesn't know when he'll play again, but will be taking some time to "kind of re-evaluate things."
And it bothers me that announcers and analysts so often seem to weigh his decision to return simply in golfing terms. As Tiger was wrapping up his Sunday round, Jim Nantz of CBS said, "All in all, Tiger has to leave here thinking that, in many ways, if he had to pick a place, Nick [Faldo], to make the return, it proved to be the right decision to come to Augusta." After the tournament, Frank Nobilo said on the Golf Channel, "I do hope Tiger Woods sees that it's in his best interests to keep playing golf." I wonder if Elin concurs. We'll find out eventually, I suppose.

Maybe Tiger just needed to do this, to play the Masters, to stick his toe back into the swirling waters for his mental health. Or as a reward to himself for working so hard at his (couples?) therapy. We really don't know -- and maybe Tiger doesn't know either. He has filed an entry for the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, but he has made no commitments thus far to play in any other tournaments. Maybe he'll pull a Ben Hogan and compete almost exclusively at majors this year.

Is Phil a "phony"? Was he ever? Apparently some people still think so, but God only knows. From where I sit, from my firmly earthly perspective, it seems clear that he loves his wife and kids; that he enjoys being out on the course; that he spends more time with the fans, who love him, than any big-name star golfer since Arnold Palmer; and that he's great for the game.
So at least for now, I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Phil the Thrill

2010-04-11T21:16:00.002-05:00

(Image: Redington/Getty Images via pgatour.com)
By winning his third Green Jacket on Sunday, Phil Mickelson joins an elite group of three-time Masters winners:

Jimmy Demaret (Image: Life.com)

Gary Player (image: sporting-heroes.net)

Sam Snead (Image: rbccanadianopen.com)

Nick Faldo (Image: virginmedia.com)

The players above trail only Tiger Woods (4), Arnold Palmer (4), and Jack Nicklaus (6) in career Masters victories.

Masters Tap-ins

2010-04-09T07:31:00.008-05:00

Old Tom! Old Tom Watson continues to amaze. In shooting 5-under 67 on Thursday, Watson was only player in the field without a bogey, and briefly held the lead all by himself. He had a five-way share of the lead until Middle-age Fred (50-year-old Couples) strolled into the clubhouse, basically wearing sneakers, with a stellar 67. But here's what I'm wondering: Let's say Old Tom continues to play well and finds himself in contention, or even leading, on the back nine on Sunday. How will that feel in comparison to last year at Turnberry? Will it be just as exciting, or will it feel a little different because we've seen it before. I think it will be just as amazing – maybe even more so, because it'd be a repeat performance – but maybe not quite so special. Last year was so out of the blue, so unexpected. But this year we're not caught quite as off-guard. And here's hoping we get the chance to make an actual comparison! (I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments section.)

Fred's Shoes. I've always had this thing about golf shoes ... I don't like 'em. It's partly because I'm usually too cheap to buy good ones, so they never seem to fit quite right or be comfortable. As long as the course is dry, I'm quite content to play in sneakers, especially if I'm walking. I sometimes even think that they help me, in that when I'm aware that I'm spikeless, I'm less prone to swing too hard, which is a common Whiffler mistake. The thing is, I sometimes feel less-than-serious by not wearing golf shoes. Hopefully, Fred's success on the Champions Tour and at the Masters (so far) wearing what look like sneakers will make it less of a stigma to wear actual sneakers on the golf course. Made by ECCO, I'll bet they start selling like crazy. But amazingly, I just went to the ECCO website and can't find Fred's shoes (I found the picture above here.) Very bad marketing mistake, it seems to me. These shoes should be the first thing you see on their homepage right now).
Afterthought: I just occurred to me that this shoe has probably not been introduced yet. They're letting Fred create a buzz and will launch it with a bang sometime soon. That works, too.

UPDATE: Some fresh info on Fred's shoes (they're not out yet) in the Truth & Rumors blog at golf.com (third item).

Tiger. The approach Tiger Woods hit on the par-4 ninth was truly out of this world. Stuck behind some trees in the left rough, Tiger slashed a 30- to 40-yard hook out around the trees and to within about 10 feet of the back left pin placement. Later on the Golf Channel, Brandel Chamblee said (paraphrasing here), "People always ask me what makes Tiger so good, and I always say it's because he's better than anybody else at every aspect of the game." No kidding. Weirdly, I found myself hoping Tiger would struggle a little today -- and he may yet as the tournament goes on. I'm not sure why, but I think it's because I worry that if he has instant success in his return it he may fall too quickly into old habits. And I'd really like to see him keep fixing his family as his top priority.

A Fair Weather Fight. Overall, scores were pretty low on Thursday. Word is that the Augusta overlords took the anticipated bad weather into account when setting up the course, with tees up on some holes and pins placed in more accessible spots. This is good to see – and is consistent with something Jones wrote in the 1959 Sports Illustrated piece I referenced in previous posts:

The placement of the flags is one of the most controversial matters in any golf tournament, because it can so drastically affect the difficulty of the play. The selection of the pin area and the exact location of the hole is decided on the morning of play by a committee appointed for the purpose. The decision is affected by the condition of the putting surface itself, the state of the weather to be expected and the holding qualities of the ground. ...

Even though it is too much to expect that persons selecting pin locations in the very early morning should be able to foresee weather conditions throughout the day, it is nevertheless important that they have in mind what conditions are likely to confront the players.

As it turned out, the weather didn't turn as foul as what was expected. If it had, no doubt the scores would have been higher.

The Big Two. A lot was made of Arnold and Jack pairing up as honorary starters yesterday (something Jack once said he would never do). They're continuing a wonderful tradition and I hope they're around to keep it going for a long time. There was some talk, however, about why Gary Player wasn't included, as well. And I wonder how he felt being left out. In their prime, the three of them were known as "The Big Three" -- they kind of go together in that sense. And Gary Player did win more majors (nine) than Arnold Palmer (seven). It kind of backs up the notion that Gary Player tends not to always get all the respect he deserves, for whatever reason. But after giving it some thought, I think it's fitting that Jack and Arnie were out there by themselves -- at least this year. The two really do stand head and shoulders above other surviving players, in terms of what they've meant to the Masters (10 green jackets between them) and to the game of golf in general (nobody save perhaps Walter Hagen has done more to popularize the game than Arnie). But maybe they'll add Gary Player to the mix at some point. And next year would be just fine with me. (Image: Arnie helps Jack into the green jacket in 1965, AP)

What do You Think?

Bob Jones on Augusta

2010-04-07T23:22:00.008-05:00

(Image: masters.com)
More from the 1959 Sports Illustrated article – in which Bobby Jones describes his philosophy behind the design of Augusta National and offers a hole-by-hole strategy for playing it:

We are quite willing to have low scores made during the tournament. It is not our intention to rig the golf course so as to make it tricky. It is our feeling that there is something wrong with a golf course which will not yield a score in the 60s to a player who has played well enough to deserve it.

On the other hand, we do not believe that birdies should be made too easily. We think that to play two good shots to a par-4 hole and then to hole a 10-foot putt on a dead-level green is not enough. If the player is to beat par, we should like to ask him to hit a truly fine second shot right up against the flag or to hole a putt of more than a little difficulty. We therefore place the holes on tournament days in such locations on the greens as to require a really fine shot in order to get close. With the greens fast and undulating, the putts from medium distances are difficult, and the player who leaves his ball on the outer reaches has a real problem to get down in par figures.

The contours of the greens at Augusta have been very carefully designed. We have tried to provide each green with at least four areas which we describe as pin locations. This does not mean that the pin is always placed in one very definite spot within these areas, but each area provides an opportunity for cutting the hole where the contours are very gentle for a radius of four or five feet all around.

Again, a few things stand out, such as: "We are quite willing to have low score made during the tournament." Yet it seems the current overlords lost sight of this, at least temporarily, in the years (in particular, 2007 and 2008) when they were making the Masters feel a little too much like a U.S. Open.

The whole article is fascinating. Yet, I've never heard anyone reference it in an article or on TV when discussing the changes made to the course in recent years. No one referred me to it, I simply stumbled upon it while looking for something else. In that way, I feel like I've discovered a hidden treasure.

In particular, the hole-by-hole analysis offers some fascinating glimpses into how the game has changed. Here are just a few bits, along with my own observations:

Bobby Jones: "I believe it is true that with modern equipment and modern players*, we cannot make a golf course more difficult or more testing for the expert simply by adding length. The players of today are about as accurate with a medium or long iron as with their pitching clubs. The only way to stir them up is by the introduction of subtleties around the greens."
The Whiffler: At first blush, this seems to fly in the face of the massive additional yardage that has been added to the course since Jones's day. But I think Jones was thinking in terms of Jack Nicklaus length, not Tiger Woods length. I think additional length is necessary, but it's also fair to say that not only length is required to make the course a fair and challenging test.

* In 1959, Jack Nicklaus was a 17-year-old amateur, and I believe Jones was already aware of him by then (I'll need to confirm). So it's interesting to think that Jones may have been thinking of young Jack when he wrote those words. Perhaps not, but either way, it's fascinating to realize that the age of Nicklaus – who was every bit as long, relatively speaking, as the young Tiger was – was just around the corner. There were probably those who would eventually think that the course might need to be "Jack-proofed."

Jones: "The finishes of the Masters Tournament have almost always been dramatic and exciting. It is my conviction that this has been the case because of the make-or-break quality of the second nine of the golf course. This nine, with its abundant water hazards, each creating a perilous situation, can provide excruciating torture for the front runner trying to hang on. Yet it can yield a very low score to the player making a closing rush. It has been played in 30 during the tournament and in the medium 40s by players still in contention at the time."
Whiffler: Exactly. The ultimate risk-reward golf course. The best finish in golf.

Jones [on the 555-yard par-5 2nd]: "Although this is the longest hole of the course, a well-hit tee shot will take a good run down the fairway as it slopes over the hill. It was one of our guiding principles in building the Augusta National that even our par 5s should be reachable by two excellent shots."

Whiffler: This hole was still 555 yards in 1997, when Tiger blitzed the field by 12 shots. Here's how Golf Digest's Tim Rosaforte reported Tiger's play on the hole that year: "The second, all 555 years of it, the longest hole on the course, was driver, 9-iron for Tiger on Saturday. Let's go over that again, just in case you weren't paying attention. Five hundred and fifty-five yards. Driver, 9-iron. By the way, he hit that 9-iron over the green." Somehow, I don't think that's what Jones had in mind by "two excellent shots." (Today the hole plays at 575 yards.)

Jones [on the 475-yard par-5 13th]: "We call 13 a par 5 because under certain conditions of wind and ground few players will risk trying for the green with a second shot. In my opinion this 13th hole is one of the finest holes for competitive play I have ever seen. The player is first tempted to dare the creek on his tee shot by playing in close to the corner, because if he attains this position he has not only shortened the hole but obtained a more level lie for his second shot. Driving out to the right not only increases the length of the second but encounters an annoying sidehill lie."

Whiffler: Outstanding. My favorite hole in all of golf, a brilliant design for all the reasons cited above. I also find it interesting that Jones feels it necessary to point out that why this hole is called a par-5, when by length alone it could easily be considered a par-4. Today the hole plays at 510 yards, still a very modest length for a par-5. And because of the vagaries of the fairways, and how well the green is guarded, it still takes "two excellent shots" to hit the green in two.

Jones [on the 520-yard par-5 15th]: "The fairway of this hole is quite wide. The short rough on the left is far removed from the line of play, and there is no demarcation on the right between the fairway of the 15th and that of the 17th. The tee shot may be hit almost anywhere with safety."

Whiffler: This is not quite the same hole it used to be, as trees have been added on the left and right sides of the fairway, making an accurate tee shot more important. In 1997, Tiger played the hole with impunity, as described by Rick Reilly in his Sports Illustrated write-up:

"On each of the first two days he hit a wedge into the 500-yard par-5 15th hole—for his second shot. Honey, he shrunk the course. Last Saturday his seven birdies were set up by his nine-iron, pitching wedge, sand wedge, putter, nine-iron, putter and sand wedge. Meanwhile, the rest of the field was trying to catch him with five-irons and three-woods and rosary beads."

And a closing thought from Jones:

"In over-all design the Augusta National is not intended to be a punishing golf course. It is, however, a course which under tournament conditions—that is, with the green surfaces firm, and keen—severely tests the competing player's temperament. The difficult greens demand exceptionally fierce and unremitting concentration and determination. When weather conditions are such that the golf course is wet and the wind quiet, it is much easier to play. We always hope it will not be that way during the first week in April."

"Tiger-Proofing" Augusta National

2010-04-05T23:02:00.006-05:00

With Tiger Woods making his long-awaited (well, not really all that long) return to golf at the 2010 Masters, "Tiger-proofing" Augusta National may take on a whole new meaning. This year, it may well mean keeping the spectacle of Tiger's return from befouling their sacred event – which will be a tall order.

Previously, however, "Tiger-proofing" has referred to efforts made by the ultra-proud and exclusive club to toughen the course and keep Woods from winning every year. Since his historic and record-breaking 12-stroke victory in 1997, the benevolent despots at Augusta have added limited rough (for years the course had little to none) and, more significantly, added more than hundreds of yards to its total length. This has led to myriad complaints that they've significantly diluted one very important aspect of the special tournament – by tipping the scales in favor of conservative play.

Historically, Sunday at the Masters has been known for its back-nine "roars," as players in contention throw caution to the wind and attack the course in hopes of making a charge. Meanwhile, the leader sweats through his Foot-Joys knowing that he if doesn't play aggressively down the stretch, somebody else will – and likely pass him in the closing holes. There's no better risk-reward atmosphere in tournament golf. (Image: masters.org)

     The tradition of the back-nine charge goes back almost to the very beginning. In 1935, the tournament's second year, Gene Sarazen famously holed a 4-wood at 15 on Sunday for a double-eagle 2. The "shot heard 'round the world" got him into a playoff (36 holes in those days) with Craig Wood, which he went on to win by five strokes. Just two years later, Byron Nelson played holes 12 and 13 in 2-3 (birdie, eagle) on Sunday to Ralph Guldahl's 5-6. Picking up six strokes on the first two-thirds of what is now known as "Amen Corner," Nelson pulled ahead and stayed there, finishing two strokes better than the runner-up Guldahl. The Nelson Bridge at the 13th hole commemorates the feat.

   And who could forget 46-year-old Jack Nicklaus's famous back-nine Sunday 30 in 1986. It included an eagle-birdie-birdie stretch on 15, 16, and 17 that propelled him past a veritable Hall of Fame of would-be champions, including Tom Kite, Greg Norman, Seve Ballesteros, Nick Price, and Tom Watson. And it was no coincidence, either, that, more than any other tournament, the Masters always seemed to succeed in crowning an accomplished champion.
   But the Tiger-proofing seemed to take a toll in that regard.
     In 2007, Zach Johnson famously won the tournament with a strategy of laying up on all the par-5 holes. Johnson's approach and resulting success were viewed by many as a form a sacrilege, an affront to the gods of Augusta – proof that meddlers had succeeded in sapping the essence from the founders' original intent. That Johnson was a relative unknown at the time did not help – nor did a win by Trevor Immelman, another relative B-lister, the following year. With a final-round 75, no less. No one is ever supposed to "back in" to a Masters victory.
So in recent years complaints have arisen that the so-called "Tiger-proofing" has gone too far (and in fairness, it wasn't just Tiger hitting short-iron second shots into the par-5 greens). But in 2009, some of the roars seemed to return as Phil and Tiger, paired together, waged an epic, desperate, and ultimately futile front-nine duel on Sunday. The weather, course conditions, and, perhaps most-importantly, the course set-up combined to bring some of the Sunday excitement back to the Masters.

And the debate continues to rage over whether today's August National plays the way Bobby Jones intended it. It's just too bad he's not around to weigh in on this all-important issue, isn't it?
     Ah, but we have something almost as good. In the April 6, 1959 issue of Sports Illustrated, Jones wrote an in-depth article for the venerable publication outlining for posterity his intentions for the course, including an in-depth hole-by-hole analysis. An excerpt from the introduction:

Our over-all aim at the Augusta National has been to provide a golf course of considerable natural beauty, enjoyable for the average golfer and at the same time testing for the expert player striving to better par. We want to make the bogies easy if frankly sought, pars readily obtainable by standard good play, and birdies, except on the par 5s, dearly bought. Obviously, with a course as wide open as needed to accommodate the average golfer, we can only tighten it up by increasing the difficulty of play around the hole. This we attempt to do during the tournament by placing the flags in more difficult and exacting positions and by increasing the speed of the greens. Additionally, we try to maintain our greens at such firmness that they will not hold a misplayed shot. Generally speaking, the greens at Augusta are quite large, rolling, and with carefully contrived undulations, the effect of which is magnified as the speed of the surfaces is increased.

What strikes me about this overview is how well Jones's basic principles hold up – at least at first blush. Even back then, reachable par-5s, tricky pin positions, and hard, fast, wildly undulating putting surfaces were integral to the course's character. It's hard to imagine, however, that Jones could have conceived of the lightning-fast speeds today's greens have reached – or the amazing distances today's players hit the ball.
In the next post, we'll examine how the club selections of today's pros compare with what Jones envisioned.

The Whiffler Wants to Love Raymond

2010-04-01T21:39:00.004-05:00

In between near-crippling paroxysms of overwhelming guilt, The Whiffler has been in heaven these last few days. During a spring cleaning jag last weekend, while attempting to clear thick layers of dust from behind the big, black, old-fashioned tube-style television wedged obtrusively into the corner of our tiny bedroom, I made some comment about how maybe we should find a better place to put it. Mrs. Whiffler's reply put my jaw on the floor: "Or we could just get a new TV." (Image: Wikimedia Commons.)

Two minutes later I was at Best Buy, doing my best Brett Favre at Sears imitation, standing and staring at the various flat-screens for literally (and I use that word correctly) a good solid hour, studying the picture quality, weighing the differences of 60Hz vs. 120Hz, 720p vs. 1080i, etc. Finally, I pulled the trigger and made a purchase decision – just minutes after a lady bought the last of my chosen model out from under me. Fortunately, another location had the one I wanted, and I set off across town to pick up my 32" of high-def glory. Hopefully, the buyer's remorse (I ended up spending more than I set out to) will wear off before the thrill of watching The Masters in 1080i splendor. (I may never blog again!) But I digress ...

While watching Monday night's episode of "The Haney Project: Ray Romano" on our new Sony Bravia KDL32EX500 Tuesday morning, I found myself thinking: "I really want to like this show." I love the premise. Ray's a likable guy I can relate to (he's got certain mental defects in common with The Whiffler). And his golf game is at a level (his goal is to break 80) where it seems like I could benefit from what Coach Haney would have to say to him – unlike with his previous subject, Charles Barkley, a.k.a. the "Renowned Mound of Sound-bites." (Photo: Dunn/Getty Images, via pgatour.com.)

But they're making it difficult for me. There are good parts of the show, but they're surrounded by so much fluff! There are too many of Ray's celebrity friends (Brad Garrett is really obnoxious), too much palling around, too many jokes, and too much ... Hollywood. Also (and this seems to be a general trend in "reality" television), they spend too much time before a commercial break "previewing" the next segment and too much time after reviewing what came before. It gets quite redundant for those watching the whole show.

As with the majority of us, it seems to me that most of Ray's problems are between his ears. He's quite capable of hitting good shots, and Hank says he's a very good putter for a guy at his level. But he has a consistency problem. I would love it if they would slow down the pace of the show, which is quite manic, and show an extended conversation between teacher and pupil. Much of what Hank tells the camera during the little interview asides makes a lot of sense. But I'd love to see the part where he tells it to Ray instead of to us. And to see how Ray reacts (without making a joke).

One of Hank's interesting insights is that Ray is convinced he has to get worse before he gets better. Hank says that's not so, but for Ray it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy. He's stubborn that way. Another interesting exchange came when Ray complained that Hank was putting too many thoughts into his head. Hank replied that it was only "too many thoughts" if he did not get rid of the old thoughts he already had in there before adding the new ones. That's the kind of thing I'd like to see more of.

It's almost as if they're underestimating the viewers, targeting the show for a more general audience than the golf nuts who tune in to The Golf Channel. This should be Haney's show, but they make it feel like Romano's.

One nice moment on Monday night's episode was a round of golf Ray played with Tom Dreesen, who Ray identified as one of the comedians who inspired him to go into comedy himself. It was just the two of them (and a camera crew) enjoying the game and each other's company. The "see how funny I am!" moments were minimal, which made it feel more natural than some of the other segments.

So I'll stick with it. And hopefully I'll learn a few things – besides the fact that Ray Romano's complexion is not quite as good as it looks in standard definition.

Update: Maybe the producers have been reading this blog, because the most recent show was all about golf, a pretty good analysis/summary of Ray's progress so far. Unfortunately, it was also the last new show for a while, as they revealed that Ray's father became ill and ultimately passed away in March. New episodes will resume on May 24th.

Tap-Ins

2010-03-30T08:09:00.006-05:00

A few short strokes at items that have caught my attention ...

A Wie Bit. I'll admit, I've been starting to like Michelle Wie lately. For years, it seemed like she was wasting her formidable talent through mismanagement: She spent so much time as a teenager trying to play in men's event (and LPGA majors) that she went years without a win of any kind before finally, at age 20 nabbing her first LPGA win at the Lorena Ochoa Invitational last November. The victory seemed like evidence that she was finally coming into her own, and was on the verge of realizing some of her prodigious potential. In the meantime, I was impressed that she was committed to completing her college education at Stanford, where she continues to be a full-time student in the off-season.

     This weekend, however, she showed she still has some maturing to do. Wie was in contention at the Kia Classic in California when she was assessed a penalty. After taking a swing at a ball in the water, her ball failed to officially exit the hazard, after which she clearly set her club down in the grass within the bounds of the hazard, a two stroke penalty. She did not handle it well (you can watch the video here). (Image: golf.com)
   Wie claimed that she felt "off-balance" after the shot and was merely trying to steady herself with her club. But it sure doesn't look that way! And even if that were the case, I don't think that would absolve her of the penalty (but I'm not sure of this). This is apparently not the first time that Wie has had difficulty following or knowing the rules. On Golf Central today, Tim Rosaforte called her an "airhead" when it comes to the rules (while acknowledging that she is otherwise clearly quite intelligent). I think that's a bit harsh, though for someone who's been playing golf her whole life, this strikes me as a rookie mistake.
     I am disappointed, however, that she didn't react better. It's all part of the maturation process – she is just 20 years old, after all. Hopefully she'll learn from her mistake, and from the criticism, and grow as a result.

UPDATE: Some very interesting commentary on the matter at "Free Drop," a blog written by a PGA Rules official. In a nutshell, he thinks the official involved overreached in this particular situation. Read it (including a familiar-sounding headline) here. (Hat tip: Daily Flogging blog at golf.com.)

Freddie on Fire. After getting edged out by Tom Watson in his Champions Tour debut, Fred Couples has been untouchable, winning all three senior circuit tournaments he's played in since. His latest victory, at the Cap Cana Championship on Sunday, included a blistering Sunday 62 (a course record). Pity poor Corey Pavin, the runner-up. How often does a guy go into the final round with a two-stroke lead, then shoot 66 and lose by two? Freddie is so hot, in 12 tournament rounds this year his worst score was the 68 he shot in the first round of the Ace Group Classic, his first win. Granted, the Champions Tour courses do not play to regular-Tour standards, but do you think he's not looking forward to Augusta?

Couples, of course, has a reputation of being one of the most laid-back golf champions ever. He does notoriously well during golf's "silly season," the cash-rich unofficial events that take place after the official season ends. It's apparently because he thrives under no-pressure, a trait that is no doubt working in his favor as he tees it up with the over-50 set. I've always loved Fred's famous quote about not answering the phone when he's at home – "because there might be somebody at the other end." It's definitely an attitude The Whiffler can relate to! (Image: bridgestonegolf.com.)

A Sprinkle of Bad Luck. Speaking of Corey Pavin, his chances were not helped on Sunday when his second shot at the par-4 14th hit a greenside sprinkler head and bounced 60 yards over the green into a waste area. He made bogey to lose the lead for the first time all day.

I could swear this is the second time this year I've seen something like that happen. And I understand that bad breaks are a part of golf, but this is such an artificial sort of bad break. It makes me think of the times I've missed a fairway by just a few yards, only to see my ball carom deep into the woods off a cart path that has no business being so close to the short grass. It just doesn't seem right. If Pavin's ball had come to rest on a sprinkler head, or if it interfered with his stance, he'd be entitled to relief, no penalty. But when it bounces 60 yards over the green, he has no recourse. Maybe they could put a little piece of artificial turf – or even sod – over the sprinkler heads around the green during pro tournaments, a little something to cushion the blow if a ball hits it. It would be a little extra work, but if they can take the time to paint the insides of all the holes for TV, surely they could find the time to put some miniature hair pieces on the sprinklers.

Stronger than Irons (of Old). Johnny Miller made an interesting comment on Sunday about modern clubs. While marveling with Arnold Palmer in the booth about how far players today hit their irons, Johnny pointed out that he's done some testing and found that irons today are about a club-and-a-half stronger, in terms of loft, than they were in his day. This is not a controversy, of course, but it's interesting to think how this has come to be (assuming Miller is correct). I suspect it's the result of clubmakers imperceptibly delofting clubs over the years in order to get a little extra distance over the other guy. The vast majority of golfers probably pay no attention to the degree of loft on an iron, only to the number. So if they're comparing demo 5-irons at the pro shop, for example, and one brand's club seems to go a little farther, they may not notice that it's the result of a tiny bit less loft. And even if they did, would they care?

This theory also fits in well with the trend toward multiple wedges and fewer long-irons. I've sometimes wondered where these new-fangled wedges fit in on the "loft continuum," but if today's pitching wedge is more like yesteryear's 9-iron, it kind of makes sense. It's also quite conceivable that modern perimeter-weighted irons launch today's livelier golf balls at trajectories that are still somewhat similar. (Plus, with the advent of hybrid clubs, you barely ever see true 3-irons anymore, let alone irons with a "2" or a "1" on the sole.

Again, I don't consider this to be a controversial matter. But where it does make a difference is when comparing player performance among different eras. Something to keep in mind when I post my "long-awaited" analysis of the changes made through the years at Augusta National.

Masterly Performance. And how about that Ernie Els, another guy who makes family a priority and is easy to like. It's easy to forget how close he's come to winning The Masters a number of times. He certainly seems to be coming into form at just the right time, and he'll be on my short list of guys I'm rooting for.

On Par

2010-03-25T21:20:00.003-05:00

Everyone is talking about the course changes at the Arnold Palmer Invitational (a.k.a. Bay Hill). The contours of many greens have been softened to allow for a greater variety of pin placements, bunkers have been rearranged, some greens and tees have been moved, and the course has been slightly lengthened. But what seems to be drawing the most attention is that the course will once again be playing as a par 72, for the first time since two par-5 holes were changed to par-4s in 2007.

Last night on the Golf Channel, analyst John Hawkins was downright dismissive of the change in par, calling it "meaningless." And I understand his logic: that how you play a hole is – or at least should be, especially for pros – unaffected by whether you call it a par-4 or -5.

But is it really?

I remember having this discussion with a buddy of mine way back when at the beloved Orange Course at the University of Illinois. The 13th hole was a ridiculously short par-5 – I think the card said something just shy of 450 yards (this was back when they only had one set of men's tees, and woods were still made from trees). But it was fairly tight, with OB all the way down the right and a big, yawning bunker pinching off the left side of the fairway. The steep, sloping green was also well protected by two big bunkers in the front. That never kept me from trying to hit the green in two every time, however. In retrospect, this was very bad strategy, as I'm sure I ended up with far more 7s than 4s. Playing for a safe 5 every time would have made much more sense. But I really wanted that eagle! (Image: the 13th at the Orange Course has since been lengthened to just over 500 yards.)

Then one year the powers-that-be decided the hole should be a par-4. I don't think they shortened it any, and they certainly didn't scale back the sand traps. It was really and truly the exact same hole, just with a new standard for measuring success. I found the change annoying, in part because I couldn't quite decide whether a nice 11-over-par 82, for instance, was as gratifying as a 10-over 82. And also because if I ever did get that 3 (nope), I could no longer legitimately call it an eagle. And I still played the hole the same way.

My friend, however (let's call him "Rob"), who was more apt to lay up, commented that he now felt compelled to go for the green in two. "Why?" I asked. "Because it's a par-4 now," he replied. "So?" "So on a par 4 you try to hit the green in two." "But it's the same hole!" "No it's not, it's a par-4 now." And so on ...

And that was the gist of Hawkins's argument on the Golf Channel, that par is just a number.

But I think Hawkins was missing a couple of things. For one, the holes have been lengthened – hole 4 by a lot, from 460 to 561 yards; hole 16 by a little, from 485 to 511. So they are not the "same holes."

Even beyond that, I think he's underestimating the psychological difference. Especially at 16; especially on Sunday. Yes, the total number of strokes is what ultimately decides the championship, regardless of the "to par" score. But par is how we keep track during the competition. And to a contending player on Sunday, the difference between facing an easy par-5 instead of a hard par-4 is potentially huge. (Image: pgatour.com "Shot Tracker")

Ultimately, I don't think it makes a big difference. I've always liked holes where the stroke average is somewhere approaching halfway between 3 and 4, or 4 and 5. It's why I like that drivable par-4s seem to be making a comeback (as long as there's some true risk involved in going for the green). If a hole averages 3.5 strokes, I don't think it makes a huge difference what par is, as long as the golfer has to carefully consider the risks vs. the rewards of "going for it."

On the whole, I think it's a great idea to return Bay Hill to par 72 – if only because it suits my sense of symmetry. But also because "birdie opportunities" are more exciting to watch, more crowd-pleasing, than what you might call "bogey-opportunities."

And that's a big part of what makes Augusta National so appealing – at least before they started trying to hard to "Tiger-proof" the course. Have the efforts made to make the home of The Masters a more difficult test detracted from the tournament? Have they strayed too far from the way Bobby Jones originally intended the course to be played?

We'll examine that in an upcoming post.

On a marginally related note, I like tidbit of information a lot: "Steve Stricker, No. 2 in the world, returns [to the Arnold Palmer Invitational] for the first time since 2005, mainly because his daughter's spring break in Wisconsin changed by a week." (emphasis added.)