Jim Furyk started Sunday three strokes behind Vijay Singh but quickly erased the deficit. He birdied two of the first three holes, then aced the par-three fourth on his way to shooting a final-round 64 for a repeat victory at the Canadian Open.
This week we have a recap of the Canadian Open, manipulating the rules of golf to your benefit, and a golfer’s odyssey through New Zealand.
Hole 1: Furyk Wins
Jim Furyk came back from three shots down in the final round to defend his title at the Canadian Open and win his first PGA Tour event of 2007. [Link]
Hole 2: Complaining Ames
Stephen Ames spouts off about the Canadian Open and slow greens. [Link]
Hole 3: Gulbis Wins
Congratulations to Natalie Gulbis, who notched her first LPGA Tour victory at the Evian Masters by defeating Jang Jeong on the first playoff hole. [Link]
Hole 4: Two Paths
Tim Rosaforte explores the future for the playoff contestants at The Open Championship. [Link]
Hole 5: Making History
This year is historic as the Ricoh Women’s British Open is being held for the first time at the Old Course at Saint Andrews. [Link]
Hole 6: Patriot Day
Captain Dan Rooney is using golf to help families who have lost loved ones in the war by organizing Patriot Day on September 1st. You can take part by playing at your local course and paying $1 above your normal greens fee to support the Fallen Heroes Foundation. [Link]
Hole 7: Rules Manipulation
Does knowing golf’s rules help you break them? [Link]
Hole 8: Better the Second Time Around
Andres Romero held the lead with two holes left at The Open Championship and let it slip away. He didn’t make the same mistake at the Deutsche Bank Players’ Championship of Europe. [Link]
Hole 9: Golf Marathon
Ricky Bartlett just finished a year of playing golf for charity throughout New Zealand. All 7542 holes worth. [Link]
Wasn’t the Evian Masters a Women’s major for some time? Good to see Natalie Gulbis come through in the final round and the playoff.
Yeah, I’m going to comment on that stupid article in SI.com about the cheating in golf. That article used the phrase “legalized cheating”. WTF???? If it’s legal, it ain’t cheating. It’s like complaining that “the Rules now allow players to cheat by using 3-piece urethane balls and titanium drivers.” That’s a dang odd definition of “cheat”. I guess maybe the writer feels that those actions violate some platonic ideal.
Look, some of the stuff he mentioned, like Monty replacing his ball in the wrong spot is, if true, either flat cheating, or just a really dumb Monty. But it isn’t something that’s encouraged by the rules. As for trying to hit the grandstand because you know you’ll get a drop, a) you still have to execute it (hear that, Van de Velde?) and b) how is it any different from a basketball player drawing a foul or fouling an opponent hard to stop an easy lay-up or a football player drawing a pass interference? The rules explicitly allow it. But players shouldn’t do it because some heavenly version of golf doesn’t allow it? Sorry, the article makes no sense.
So, I guess the answer to your question “does knowing the rules help you break them?â€Â, the answer is “no, it helps you follow the rules to your advantage.†If other players are too dumb or misguided to use every advantage offered by the rules, it doesn’t make YOU a cheat.