Author: Ben Alberstadt

Perhaps, it has happened in a somewhat ham-handed fashion; nevertheless, it has happened. With the advent of the FedExCup, the American public has been presented with a formal ranking of PGA Tour tournament prestige, or worth (at least with reference to this particular system, which, given its ten million dollar annual prize, is a pretty influential system).

The merits of the system itself aside, I propose that there are really only two “Majors,” and that the rest of the tournaments are filler. Really, though, every tournament ought to strive to create its own culture, history, and prestige (in short, marketability). However, the absence, presence, or overabundance of such does not necessarily make any particular tournament a Major.

What does then?

Continue reading “Only Two Majors”

I think we’ve all heard the banter of talking heads, players and enthusiasts revolving around whether or not The Players Championship deserves to be evaluated in the same way as a Major, or formally considered such by golf’s governing bodies. My argument, which will be laid out in the succeeding paragraphs, is that it doesn’t.

Further, I believe the only two legitimate Majors are The Open Championship and The U.S. Open. I wasn’t sure any golf literate or marginally sentient being could make such a claim when I took to my easy chair to massage my temples and consider this issue. However, I am now convinced that it is the most historically honest and consistent evaluation of the golfing calendar, even though I am neither beating the drum of reform or expecting any semblance of change, save for that of popular perception and (add this to Jon Stewart’s list of “Sh*t That Will Never Happen) media sensationalizing.

Wait!

Stop the press! What of Augusta… and the Masters… Amen Corner, patrons and not fans… Sarezen’s double eagle… Green Jackets… Champions Dinners… Magnolia Drive?

Fear not. I’ll deal with those concerns in another article. The beast in the trap is The Players. I’ll approach Major classification next week, maybe. Before any of this, however, we need clarity and, alas, defintions.

Continue reading “The Fifth Major? Please.”

I strongly considered responding to some of the more interesting comments affixed to part one, but I’ll remain the catalyst for mudslinging and not a participant in the action which I provoke (which usually seems to be calling me and/or my writing “pointless” or “stupid”).

It’s nice both to hear words of encouragement and dodge the tomatoes which are being hurled my way. Keep it up. Before I get to the other major points, I’d like to say that one of the main reasons for all the specific “anti-Tiger” complaints is the man’s sheer overexposure, and indeed many of his flaws (foul language, relative scarcity, photographer abuse) stem, I think, for his overexposed status. That is, he’s asked to don a persona, which is mostly his creation, but which is, to some extent, a washed out facade, all the time.

True, there are great rewards in being “Tiger Woods,” but the man also exists within very apparent boundaries, which seem to be ever encroaching, thus his inherently defensive posture. This isn’t so much of a justification for behavior, but rather an attempt to identify root causes, for what it’s worth.

Anyway, on with the rest of the letter.

Continue reading “An Open Letter To All Anti-Tigerites, Part Two”

To Whom It May Concern:

I am not an entirely shameless and uncritical worshipper of Tiger Woods. There are things about the man that I don’t like, both on and off the golf course. On the course, it annoys me when he refers to himself as “Woody,” when he insists on two possible hat and shoe combinations (white and white or black and black), when he and Steve Williams interact like they are angry school teachers, when he blows snot rockets or expels worse: an unbelievably generic post-round interview.

Continue reading “An Open Letter To All Anti-Tigerites, Part One”

Whether it’s expanding, or it is simply a particular culture of obsession which has bubbled to the surface, the community of golf equipment fetishists is a presence across the World Wide Web as well as the non “e” world.

In forums, such as the one on this site or those at our partner golfwrx.com and elsewhere, begging for access to equipment trailers at PGA Tour events nationwide (and presumably at Nationwide Tour events, also) scouring eBay and “buying/selling” threads for premium equipment and rare goods, GEFs are here and they are thoroughly obsessed.

Continue reading “What’s a GEF, Anyway?”

Since I have been in the habit of airing my grievances as of late, I’m going to continue that trend for another week, albeit with a much more insidious target than Phil Mickelson. Those of us who play golf regularly and attend tournaments are most certainly familiar with this individual; although, as I learned quite recently, his natural habitat may be the driving range (more specifically, the indoor golfing facility).

Continue reading “The Worst of the Worst”

Mentioning Lefty in my column last week seems to have a beneficial effect on the golfer’s play. When, last week, I jokingly suggested Mickelson had lost the ability to compete at the highest level, he went out and won the Northern Trust Open, collecting a cool 1.1 million dollars in the process. I only make reference to the preceding as a way of saying “Phil, I hope the following published objection to you makes you richer and more victorious.” Recent history, and the fallacy of false cause, suggest it will.

It isn’t that I dislike Phil personally, it’s just that, representationally or symbolically I find him tough to stomach. It isn’t as though I haven’t tried to like the guy. I have. However, despite my best efforts, I find myself rooting against him, amused by his two way miss off the tee and quite delighted when his umpteenth unnecessary flop shot doesn’t come off as planned.

Continue reading “I Wish I Could Like Phil Mickelson, But I Can’t”