sonicblue

Winner, winner, chicken dinner! My partner had a little bit of a rough stretch but held her total score together well (51). She lost both her match (needed to win #9 to push, but halved it) and stroke (by 2). I played solid and, I think, made my opponent push toward the end, and he fell apart a little. I shot 37 (par 34), net 33, won both my points and pushed our team scores down enough to win both of those points as well.

I highly doubt ball-on-ball is plausible. Even if one ball was to land, on the fly, and hit another ball already on the ground squarely enough to send it - what - 50-80 yards, one or both of those balls is going to get sent in some wildly askew direction, I'm pretty sure. That it could happen and both balls would be right in the general line of where you initially saw them, has got to be a one in a billion shot.

I've been getting told that I have 'a beautiful swing' since before I could break 100. I think I just have a smooth tempo and good balance, even on my awful shots (my hands/impact is a problem, I'm working on it). Funniest moment along those lines: playing a round with a buddy, we get hooked up with 3 guys (yes, a fivesome), and one I'm pretty sure is using some early morning alcohol to cure a hangover and is getting a bit buzzed. He comments, after one drive, on how nice my swing is, fine. A couple holes later, I take driver, and duck-hook the s**t out of it, and I'm not happy, to say the least. I walk back to the cart, and he's got this confused look on his face, and says, "man, what's going wrong? Your swing is so nice, how is that happening?!?!?" His buddies, with clearer minds, seeing my frustration, are going, "dude, just shut up, would ya?!?!" Best moment was after I joined my club recently, which has a LOT of good players. I play in an ABCD tournament (each foursome has an 'A' player, a lower handicap, and a 'B' player and so on). I think I was the B or C, not sure, but the guy who was the A player (he's currently a 4.5 index), a couple holes in, says to me, "Man, you have such a great swing, great tempo." A couple holes later, I hit a nice tee shot on a par 3, and as he was walking up to hit next, he said, "I could watch your swing all day." Finally, as he introduced me to another member in the bar later, he said, "you should see this guy, BEAUTIFUL swing. If you saw him on the range, you'd think he was a 2." Unfortunately, we haven't played together since, but I did email him once, said I'd like to get out together and play some time. He wrote back that he was interested, too, because 'watching my swing is good for [his] game.' That was probably the first time a truly good player gave me such compliments, kinda gave me hope. Most compliments about a 'pretty swing' I take with a grain of salt. That time, it seemed more of an informed opinion, gave me hope that maybe I'm closer than I think.

I often give a bunch. Here's the thing: a high handicapper won't consistently bogey or double every hole. He'll probably par a couple, bogey a few, may even bust out a birdie, but will likley blow up one or two holes. A lower index WILL LOSE the holes he pars in all likelihood. You need to just play your game - which is consistency, compared to his - and ensure you win his worse holes. You will likely win net stroke play, it's the match play that's tough. Just have to take your medicine and play smart. If you can see he's playing that blow-up hole, throttle back and don't get aggressive, let him blow up, and take the hole.

A friend of mine from high school, who had numerous close long-time friends, and an awesome, supportive, close immediate family, threw himself off a bridge after telling his mom he was going for a run. I don't know you, and I've read some good posts by you, and I don't know what your background history is to make you say something like it, but it's a f**king arrogant thing to blame the people around him for it. Has AN intervention prevented A suicide at some point, absolutely. I question whether the person who was 'headed off' was really serious, though; giving people even a chance to intervene normally implies you're not real gung-ho on it. Not to mention, a ZILLION people are sad and down and dejected all the time, and none of them are going to head-butt a train as a result. When friends step in for those cases and take a buddy out for the night to cheer him up or whatever, doesn't mean they prevented a suicide. Just like, when someone doesn't step in to 'cheer up a sad friend,' it doesn't mean they missed all signs and are responsible for a subsequent suicide. If you watch Dwyer's thing, you could see the fear in his eyes when people showed that they may try to stop him. He stopped what appeared to be a bunch of prepared comments and just blew his head off. That's messed up, and defies all logic, thinking, rationalization, whatever. So everyone in the world should go get suicide-prevention-specific training? Is it a weekend workshop??? C'mon, really???

It was an attempt to put to rest the argument where people try to bring character into this. I thought that article emphasized exactly how little we knew athletes on a personal level before, and we hear way too damn much know (and still know too little).

Sorry, I haven't bothered to put cards up in forever.

continued: OK, so Tiger. An editor brought up this question, and I think it's a fascinating one: "Isn't this whole Tiger Woods story entirely a product of the TMZ era? If this is 1955 or 1975 or whatever, none of this happens — the public revelations of infidelity, the crumbling golf game, the divorce, etc. No?" This is stuff I've thought about, you've probably thought about ("It's a different time"), but perhaps not so directly. A quick view of the Tiger Timeline shows, I think, that the editor is right, that this is a most modern of stories. I have written this timeline in longer form, but for this story it's worth repeating quickly. Nov. 25: The National Enquirer announces that it is about to break a story that Tiger Woods had an affair. Nov. 27: Tiger Woods gets in a one-car accident. Details are sketchy. Nov. 29: Tiger Woods releases his first statement taking responsibility for accident and asks for privacy. Dec. 1: A woman — not the same as the National Enquirer woman — comes forward to say that she has had a longstanding affair with Tiger. A panicked voicemail with Tiger Woods' voice is released to U.S. Weekly. Dec. 1: Tiger Woods releases his second statement, taking more responsibility, asking for more privacy. Dec. 3: TMZ reports that another woman — third woman so far — had an affair with Tiger Woods. Dec. 6: Radar Online reports that a fourth woman had an affair with Tiger Woods. Dec. 6: The New York Daily News reports that a fifth woman had an affair with Tiger Woods. Dec. 6: The News of the World reports that a sixth woman had an affair with Tiger Woods. Dec. 7: A porn star announces that she is the seventh woman to have had an affair with Tiger Woods. Dec. 8: A second porn star announces that she is the eighth woman to have had an affair with Tiger Woods. Dec. 11: Tiger Woods releases his third statement, taking more responsibility. He says he will step away from golf to "focus my attention on being a better husband, father and person." Dec. 13: The first company — Accenture — drops Tiger Woods as spokesman. It will not be the last. Feb. 19: After a two-month absence — during which rumors continue to fly and Woods is photographed at a sex treatment facility — Tiger Woods speaks publicly. He again takes responsibility and says he doesn't know when he will return to golf. March 16: Woods announces that he will play at the Masters. March 17: A porn star releases text messages that she claims were from Tiger Woods. March 21: Woods gives his first interviews — to the Golf Channel and ESPN — and says he's done some pretty disgusting things. April 5: Woods does his first full-fledged press conference, leading up to the Masters. And so on — good Masters, bad tournaments, splitting with golf coach, lots of talk about what it all means — until finally we get to where we are and the finalizing of the divorce, and People magazine's exclusive one-time interview with his ex-wife Elin. Now, look at that timeline ... and tell me how much of that would have come out in years past. Some of that stuff — cell phone voice mail, texts — did not exist even a few years ago. But even beyond that, we might assume that not too long ago, the first Tiger Woods affair story, the one that started everything, might never have appeared in The National Enquirer. As far as I know no damaging stories about Mickey Mantle's Wild Life appeared during his playing days, just as an example, and Mantle was for the time as famous as any athlete in America. It's one of those mind-bending, It's A Wonderful Life, questions, to wonder if the entire Tiger Woods history would have been different had that first story never run. But even assuming that everything went as it did ... none of it would have appeared in the news. None of it. Women wanting to tell their stories about affairs with Tiger Woods? There undoubtedly would have been NO market for that — how many "I had an affair with Jack Kennedy" stories were there in mainstream publications when JFK was president of the United States? And that was a MILLION times more interesting that the story of a professional golfer cheating on his wife. There might have been a brief mention of Woods' car accident, I suppose, but undoubtedly it would have been viewed as "minor," and Tiger Woods' statement would have instead said something like, "I am fine, and hope to be at 100% strength by the beginning of the golf season." Would there have been a layoff? Doubtful. Would there have been questions? Doubtful. Would anyone even have dared write about Tiger Woods' "Wild Life?" Doubtful — those Wild Life stories that were written in years past were usually done after the wildness had passed, when the stories were more about redemption than the fall. You could ask, of course, if Tiger Woods' golf game would have fallen off had he not had to go through the media hell that came with his Wild Life revelations. But I think it's at least possible that his game would have fallen off — this kind of thing has happened before. You can say, "Oh, but Tiger Woods was so much better than, say, Hal Sutton." And he was. But he's not immortal. Whether it's the Wild Life, whether it's getting older, whether it's injuries or late nights, time catches everybody. Sooner or later, Tiger Woods won't be a great golfer anymore. Maybe it's not for another few years, but someday it will happen. Whether people want to admit it or not, he happens to be showing signs of it happening now. I think he might have shown those signs no matter what was in the tabloids. But maybe not. And anyway, the obvious point is that the coverage of his off-year would have been very different in a different time. There would be much more talk about his swing plane — if you can bear that. In the end, Tiger Woods' life story isn't simple. Nobody's life story is simple. It seems to me that we view our greatest athletes through the prism of their time. Ty Cobb was a hard-charging SOB who played baseball with the heat of a cornered soldier. Babe Ruth was a lovable lug with a big appetite for hot dogs and beer and the night. Joe Louis was a dignified man who fought for his country at a time when his country would not fight for him. Ben Hogan was a wee little iceman from Texas who had uncovered the secret of golf by living an ascetic life on the world's practice ranges. Mickey Mantle was the Oklahoma Kid who hit long home runs through agonizing pain and got away by palling around with his friends. Joe Namath was a brilliant quarterback who enjoyed being out and being seen and who expressed the essence of cool without seeming to try. Dick Allen was a fierce man who refused to be called "Richie" — a little boy's name, he said — who hit baseballs with power and grew so despised that he would wear his batting helmet out to the field to protect himself from flying hate. Arnold Palmer was "the King" — the most beloved golfer of his time and probably any other time, too. That's how we saw them. In some ways that's how we still see them. But is that who they were? Is that who they are? Of course not. We see them through their moment of time ... through the codes of their day, the standards of their media, the measures of their time. Could you even IMAGINE the field day that TMZ and the rest would have had with Babe Ruth? And we see Tiger Woods through his moment of time. Even if he lived EXACTLY the same life, would we have viewed him differently 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago? Of course we would. People wouldn't write this stuff. If anything, he would get the Hal Sutton treatment about Wild Nights. How we view our athletes as people is tinted by time. In the end, though — and this is one of the charms of sports — the Tiger Woods golf story IS pretty simple. It doesn't really matter what anybody says. It doesn't really matter what anybody believes. It doesn't really matter what theories are concocted, what views are expressed, what stories are broken, even what Tiger Woods himself thinks. If he wins the Masters next year, he's back. If he wins the U.S. Open or the British or the PGA or some combination of the majors, he's back. If he breaks Jack Nicklaus' record for most major championships, he will be widely viewed as the greatest golfer ever. And if he doesn't win those majors, doesn't break Nicklaus' record, doesn't get back to playing at the level at which he once played, well, he isn't back, and he isn't the same, and he will not be widely viewed as the greatest golfer ever. There's a clarity to sports, like beer and pop, that is both refreshing AND cold.

I don't want to start another whole thread on this, and I'm not sure which Tiger thread should have it, but for the people throwing character into this mix, I think this article makes a fantastic, insightful point: http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/...3625-1,00.html http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/...3625-2,00.html This is meant to pose a question about Tiger Woods. But let's begin with Hal Sutton. Hal Sutton was just 25 years old when he beat Jack Nicklaus by a shot to win the PGA Championship at Riviera in 1983. "I have a feeling this is the first of many," Nicklaus said after it ended — Nicklaus was always so graceful in defeat. And there was a point to his words. Sutton had won the U.S. Amateur, the Western Amateur twice, he had been named college golfer of the year, had been called "the next Jack Nicklaus" so many times that it was kind of hard not to believe it. "The Bear Apparent," Sports Illustrated called him. Others called him "Prince Hal." Hal Sutton was 42 years old when he beat Tiger Woods by a shot to win the Players Championship in 2000. That was Woods' magical year, when he won three of the four major championships, won the World Golf Championships by 11 strokes, won a total of nine times on tour and, by most accounts, played golf better than it had ever been played before. Sutton beat him straight up. He needed to hit a good shot on the 72nd hole to win, and he pulled his 6-iron, and he shouted "Be the right club today!" with the ball in the air. It was the right club. There is no other golfer, as far as I know, who beat Nicklaus and Woods straight up, in the big moments, with both golfers in their relative primes (Nicklaus was 43 but still strong). There is only Hal Sutton. Only ... what happened to Hal Sutton in the years in between? His golf game disintegrated, that was the most obvious thing that happened. The Sports Illustrated story referenced above, titled "The Fall of Prince Hal," appeared in 1988 — the worst for his golf game still came AFTER that story. Sutton did not win a tournament between May 1986 and September 1995. In that time frame, he missed the cut in 13 of the 26 major championships in which he played, and he has never again finished Top 3 at a major. He almost lost his tour card in 1992, and for all practical purposes did lose his way. After his renaissance, Golf Digest would write about a reporter ("who must have been on loan from the police beat," the author snarled) who asked Sutton how he filled his time during the years when he "left the game." It was a generally miserable time. Why did it happen? There were theories, of course. His swing betrayed him. His low trajectory shots were not built for week-in, week-out play. His short game wasn't quite as good as it needed to be. He stopped making putts. He stopped working as hard on his game. One of the popular opinions among golf analysts and players was that Sutton was never that good in the first place. "It was a little unfair for people to project him as a dominating player," Nicklaus said in '88. "He's just not as powerful as guys like [Seve] Ballesteros and [Greg] Norman, and his putter has hurt him." And then, there was something else ... something that would cryptically be called the "wild life" in the various stories written about his decline. Prince Hal, it was said, lived a Wild Life in those younger years. A Wild Life, capitalized, was more or less understood in those years, much the way that a fadeout in old Hollywood movies suggested that Rick and Ilsa had sex. Wild Life meant fast cars (in some of the stories, Sutton admitted his weakness for Porsches), and late nights and parties and hangovers and lots and lots of women. In those days, for the most part, Wild Life was left to the imagination. Sutton would marry and divorce four times. He was cruelly called "Halimony" by some of the players, and at the end of the Sports Illustrated piece there is the story of a mean bit of gamesmanship by Fuzzy Zoeller, who, it appears, was a big-league jerk long before he made his infamous "That little boy is driving well and he's putting well ... tell him not to serve fried chicken next year [at the championship dinner]" crack about Tiger Woods. "Hey Hal," Fuzzy said at a pre-tournament shootout at the Memorial, "how many of your ex-wives are in the gallery?" Even after Sutton put his life and game back together — found God, straightened his drive, started making putts, won some tournaments, became Ryder Cup captain — he did not want to revisit the old Wild Life. You couldn't blame him for this, of course. The closest, as far as I know, that he ever has come to really discussing those days was on this religious site. He wrote: "But golf did not bring me personal happiness, so I began to look to other things for my happiness. With all the money I had made I thought I could buy happiness. I’ve always loved fast cars, so first I bought a Porsche. When that didn’t fill the emptiness, I bought a house. When that didn’t do it either, I bought an airplane. None of these things brought me the happiness I was looking for." Again, you have to read between the lines. When my friend, sportswriter Ken Burger — who will admit to having lived a WILD LIFE, all capital letters, filled with divorce and alcoholism and the rest — wanted to talk with Sutton about their rough pasts, Sutton bristled. "What do you know about it?" he snapped. "Plenty," Kenny said. I guess the point is that, in general, the story of Hal Sutton and the Wild Life was kept in code and in shorthand and in closing paragraphs. Of course, Hal Sutton wasn't ever really a big star. He was a promising golfer who won a major championship at a young age, but he wasn't front-page news. Then again, Sutton wasn't the only golfer who lived the Wild Life — or the only golfer whose game probably suffered because of it. There were others, truly great players, who lost their touch and lost their feel and lost their swing, and the other players whispered about the "real reasons" behind it all. But you haven't read those stories, I haven't read those stories — or if we've read them, they were hilarious tales about how Walter Hagen filled bathtubs with champagne, won golf tournaments after long and sleepless nights, all until his putting stroke had, in the immortal words of John Lardner, "been fatally marred by, he said, a 'whisky jerk.'" It was a different time. It was a different world. "Wild Life" was as far as anyone would go, and often people would not even go that far.

My league plays nine holes, usually the front nine of this course, a pretty easy par 34. In the past, the greens actually are somewhat slippery, and there is a good mix of shape/length, but it's not long, few hazards, etc... Middle of last year, I was playing really well, carding consistent 36-39 or so. Finished poorly, low 40s, but enough to win. I started this year with a 5 index still. I was horrible to start. Couldn't break 40, even shot a 48 one week, ugh. My index creeped up to an 8. Then it suddenly all came together with a 35, 38, 37 streak. A 44 popped up out of nowhere, then a 38 and 39 to end the year (and those were rounds I felt like I was struggling on). In the final, I'm playing a guy I'll give 3 strokes to. His best round is a 38, his last six week-average is 44, including a 39, but he's coming off two straight 46's. He plays a nice game, has a pretty nice swing, seems like a laid-back type that may do ok under the pressure. If he busts out a good round, I have to go really low. Working for me, though, is being the lowest index in the league, I think I'm seen as 'the best player,' and maybe that will put a little intimidation on my side. Overall, though, my game feels good, I think if I can put down a 38-39, he has to shoot 42 to push, and I like my chances in that. My partner is getting 2 strokes, but she has hit a hot streak and dropped her index three shots in six weeks, so she'll need to stay hot to play to it. She shot her lowest round ever the other week, a 42; generally, her benchmark is breaking 50, with a 47-48 being a solid round. The guy she's playing has averaged 45 over the last six weeks, but that includes a 42. His game is definitely erratic, swing is kinda jittery, but if he's got a little rhythm in it, he holds it together pretty well. I don't think he's a pressure guy, though, so I'm feeling another 46-ish from him. Their match shapes up to be a push. As a team, we're only giving 1. My partner seems to have her game, so if we both stay fairly consistent, that one stroke won't matter, and we'll pull off the team match. Game is Tuesday evening, wish me luck!

Playing my dad's course in upstate NY, a re-worked par 5. Only measures 465, but the tee shot is uphill, blind and doglegging left. Second shot is somewhat downhill but the green curves left, with a pond running the last 100 yards left, just a thin landing area on the right, and that's protected by a bunker if you go through the fairway. There's also a bunker on the back of the green, coming out of which leads to a sharp downhill bunker shot back toward the pond. I hit a good drive, not awesome, up over the blind hill, right side of the fairway, with about 210-something to the flag, wind was coming slightly in and from the left. I just had a sudden flush of confidence, and took my 3I hybrid, really stayed quiet and through the shot, hit it dead down the right side with a soft draw into the wind, came left and bounced to about 20 feet or so, IIRC.

I was walking up to a green once with the rest of my group. There had been while butterflies around all day, I kept seeing them thinking they were balls. Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye, I see something again, and turn to look, and - LITERALLY - this ball, that apparently had been skulled out from a treeline, on our same hole, from hardly 150 yards away, passes MILLIMETERS from my nose, and it was humming. If it had hit my nose, it would have been history; if it's line was six inches different, I honestly it could have killed me. The guy who hit it seemed to show zero awareness that we were there, where his ball went, nothing. I just let it go. A few holes later, this one tee box was way away from the path; I was back on the box while my group was still by the carts. I see the guy come walking up, figure for sure my apology is coming. Nope, he just sorta walked near them, but then away and back to his game.

Bah, did 113/4, got the 2, had the 33 remainder, then did 4*8=32, but took the '4' part of that to get 24, instead of taking the 8 to get 28. It's a curse to be able to do math in your head, but not always have the patience to extract the right figure as the numbers conk around in your head! Yes, so it should have been 113+28 = 141 for my example, ya got me!

Completely incorrect? The rating is, inherently, a SCORE. 'Scratch rating' is what a scratch golfer would score, 'bogey rating' is what an 18 handicap would score, correct? So, the x-axis is handicap, the y-axis is score. You calculate the slope as rise/run, which equals (change in score) / (change in index), and when reduced to obtain a 1 in the denominator, is the same as saying (additional strokes per unit of handicap), and the implication is that you can interpolate/extrapolate that line to any handicap. That's exactly what I said in words. The only difference between our net math, is I missed the 113, which you (correctly) didn't. As an example, if a course rating was 72 with slope 113, the 18 handicap would be expected to shoot 90, correct? So, now let's say that a rating is 74, with a slope of 137 (approximating 1.25 * 113). The 18 handicap would now be expected to shoot, not 18 strokes, but 25% * 18 above it (~97). But, in theory, I could take that all the way down to a 4 handicap, and say that he would be expected to shoot, not 4 strokes over the rating, but 1.25*4 = 5 strokes above it, or 79. That is, for each digit you are above a scratch, you can be expected to shoot the slope (/100) * your handicap (and, yes, /113), above that. Unless my math degree and reading comprehension is completely abandoning me, I don't see where missing a divisor of 113 makes me 'absolutely incorrect.'

Just remember it this way: your index is a DIFFERENTIAL, not a 'to-par' score, and it's a differential at an "average" slope course. So, you adjust the differential for the slope of the course you're playing, then you add that to the RATING to get your expected score. Again, though, that's WHEN you play to your handicap, which should only happen at 1-in-4. If that's your home course, that's a damn hard course. The 75 rating says that a scratch golfer would only by expected to shoot 75. The slope of 150 (which really means 1.50) says that, for every digit above scratch you are, you'd be expected to shoot 1.5 shots worse than that. So, yeah, if you're shooting mid-80s on a course like that, good on ya. For comparison, Bethpage Black is rated a 76.6/148.

You adjust your 8 for the slope, then add it to the rating: 8*150/113+75 = 86. If you shot that score, you will have 'played to your handicap.' The figure you refer to is 25% (more on that below), so generally speaking, you'd only be expected to shoot that 1-out-of-4 rounds. *********** Guys, it's pretty easy, anyone can set up a spreadsheet, or even do it by hand. 1) For each round, calculate your "differential (D)." It starts, not with your score (S) relative to par, but relative to the course rating (R), to account for 'easy' vs. 'hard' courses. You then adjust for the slope (L) of the course relative to the 'average' course, currently considered 113. Mathwise, it's just (S-R) * 113 / L = D. 2) Out of your most recent TWENTY rounds, you take your 10 BEST D's and average them, then multiply by 0.96. Think of it this way. If you straight averaged your last twenty rounds (assuming 'normal' (in)consistency), you'd have about half higher than your average, and half lower. Well, the handicap calc throws OUT the half that's higher, so your handicap - in words - measures "when you play BETTER than your average, what's your average?" Now think about those ten best scores/differentials you kept and averaged. Again, with normal (in)consistency, about five of those will be lower than your handicap, and five will be higher. Now bring back in those ten bad rounds you threw out (which will obviously be higher than your handicap). That means, out of your last 20 rounds, you played 5 to at or lower than your handicap, and 15 higher. That's why they say, you'll only shoot your handicap about 25% of the time. I've advocated for it before, that I think it's worthwhile to compute your 'anti-handicap.' That is, back at step 2, keep your 10 WORST rounds, and average them, then multiply by 0.96. That will give you a measure of, "when you play WORSE than your average, what's your average." The spread of that vs. your actual index measures your consistency, and an undertaking just as worthwhile as lowering your handicap, can be lowering your anti-handicap, which is the same as saying becoming more consistenct, and isn't that what a whole lot of us really want? Maybe you currently shoot 90 usually, and it may not be reasonable to expect you'll suddenly shoot 78's, but it'd sure be nice NOT to bust out the 105. Of course, computing the anti-handicap isn't the cure. That's like saying, "if I just got my GIR % up to 85%, I'd really score well." Statistics just provide some other tangible motivation. If all you worried about was your handicap, maybe you end up grinding too hard out there, always looking to log that low score. Anti-handicap may give you motivation to say, "you know what, I'm not trying to shoot 80 today, for the next month, though, I'm going to try to get all those 100+ rounds out of my index calculation," and you focus on course management instead, making just 'solid' shots, not heroic shots, e.g. Just a thought.

BallStriker: why don't you read your posts back and understand exactly how much you are simply insinuating and deducing based on some completely pre-formed opinion. You...don't...know...EITHER guy, I don't care how intently you listen to some post-round interview, and I sure as hell you don't know jack about Jack and how 'gracious through and through' he may have been. Media coverage in his day was anemic compared to today, if that was even a valid way to 'know' someone, and I sincerely doubt you personally ran across the man to know his character. I think everyone needs to realize is, the only thing we KNOW about these guys, is their golf skills, what they're capable of doing on a golf course. The guys that look like ideal little daddies and husbands and sons could be complete bastards off the course, and the guys who cry like babies or rant like maniacs could be humanitarians off the field. NO AMOUNT of media coverage will ever convey the truth. As they say, "walk a mile in their shoes" and then chime in all you want. Until then, I would really prefer this forum stick to the art and skill of playing this great game, and stop droning on like high school girls about who said what, who's nice, who's mean, who's not as good as.... I mean, seriously, did someone actually imply that Jack was better b/c he won with a local caddy, and that modern players somehow aren't as skilled because they 'rely' on a caddy? Jesus......

As soon as reporters start ASKING something original, I'll expect an original reply. It's not Tiger's, or Phil's, or anyone other player's job, to articulate the vagaries of their round, their performance, or anything else. They're GOLFERS, not orators. Every post-whatever interview I've seen in ANY sport in the modern era of media, sucks goat balls. We're inundated with statistics, replays and comparisons in real-time throughout the contest; what more could the post-interview POSSIBLY provide?? Recreational: exactly how old are you, and how many post-round interviews with Jack have you seen? I think now that Jack is a nearly-completely-out-of-action 'legend' of the game, we tend to romanticize his career a little. My recollection, I've heard people say Jack was pretty competitive, ornary bastard in his day. On the flip, though, IMHO, I see Phil's Romper-Room/Crayola/Disneyworld bs nice-guy post-round interviews as fake. No way you practice like these guys do, endure 6-7 hours per day at the hardest course in the world, deal with media expectations, only to fall 3 or 4 strokes shy (out of 280+ strokes), and trot off and go, "welp, ya know, Mark, it was just tough, but I'm happy for Graeme." Bullshit. If that's who you truly are, then fine, but that sounds 'made for TV' if you ask me, and moreover, I don't see that as 'better' than a guy who comes off and says, "you know what, I'm really angry and disappointed at my play." To me, there's an element of genuiness there. Just because he doesn't manage - in the 15 second sound-byte - to congratulate the winner, doesn't mean he doesn't feel or think that. Sins of commission are one thing, but for the love of Zeus, now we're piling Tiger with sins of OMISSION as well Lastly, for the record, there is NO WAY he said 'we made 3 mental mistakes.' I heard that chat with Rolfing live, and he absolutely said "I made 3 mental mistakes." If there is one thing I think I can infer about Tiger, is that he is HIGHLY unlikely to ever blame someone else for his performance, and I can't IMAGINE he'd call out Stevie (which is who I would imagine any 'we' would have to refer to) in a public forum.

Oh........my........God........now who sounds petulant? Tiger just finished a grueling final round out of four, on an absurdly difficult course for the US OPEN! He's exhausted, disappointed, discouraged. You think he wants to sit there and listen to Mark Rolfing's stupid-ass questions? I was actually STUNNED he asked as good a question as he did ('what positives can you take away from today?' to which Tiger honestly replied 'nothing'), seeing as his follow-up was something completely patronizing, IIRC, like, "well, you tried hard out there, just didn't get it done." Normally, you get the standard, I-can't-believe-you're-a-journalist-and-all-you-have-is, 'So, Tiger, how disappointed are you right now?' You talk about contrasting Tiger and Phil based on select snapshots of their actions on the golf course and a few sound bytes afterwards. It amazes me how people just have to try to bring down others.

I just don't get why Tiger can't figure out his driver. From the guy who I once heard amazed Nike techs with his ability to hit balls with requested spin rates, and he can't even keep it in PLAY?

Think of it this way, when Phil wins, you will almost always see Tiger finishing somewhere in the top 10, if not top 3. Conversely, a lot of times, when Tiger wins, Phil is somewhere 15-25. Put another way, Tiger simply finishes high in nearly every tournament he enters, and wins 5, 6, 7 times per year. That's why Tiger is #1. A good year for Phil is 3 wins with some very low finishes sprinkled in. That's why he's not #1.

I've been seriously playing for about 13 years. I came close several times, a few of which I remember vividly: * A short par 3 very early in my playing career, maybe 135 yards, my tee shot landed, and stop dead, about two inches from the hole. * Downhill par 3 in New Hampshire, landed right over the flag and came rolling back, just peeked at the right edge before finishing about 2' under the hole * 14th hole at Bella Vista in Pennsylvania, a newly constructed island green. Played about 150 or so, and hit a cut 9-iron exactly how I wanted, I loved just seeing the shot fly. When it landed, the spin started to move it to the right, toward the flag, and it checked and settle about a foot away. I took a pic: * An impressive par 3 in California, 13th at Hiddenbrooke, about 165-170, way downhill and over a huge ravine. Hit it a mile high, landed about three feet away and spun directly toward the cup, but stopped about 18" away. I took pics: I finally got my first in the most bizarre round of my life (I posted about it on here). In addition to my card including eagle, birdie, par, bogey, double, triple and quad, I also nailed an ace. 162 yards, downhill, 8-iron. I was actually aiming for left half safe, but pushed the shot. It landed JUST over a bunker in front, the back of which formed a large mound at the edge of the green. My ball landed on the mound and immediately hopped left because of it, and made a beeline the remaining, oh, 15' straight into the cup.

Agreed, Tiger is in a league all his own when it comes to figuring out how to plan a shot, pick a club and execute the shot. The measure of talent is the results. Some people, a la Daly, may be getting a whole hell of a lot out of what talent they do have, sans any additional work ethic, but when there's so much unfulfilled potential obvious, I believe that becomes measured as 'unfulfilled, and therefore fictional, talent.' That is, if you don't DO anything with the talent, is it really there? I have to chime in on something else, too - there is no such thing as an 'imaginative' golfer. A golfer 'visualizes.' Imagination implies fiction, UNreality. We all can look at shots and visualize a hook around the trees, a flop over the bunker...but those are all restricted by course topology, gravity and the laws of physics. Our imagination is enormously constrained against the real possibilities. Aside from the first time he messed around in his yard and hit a wedge backwards, Phil is no more 'imaginative' than anyone else. Give any guy a 64° wedge, and of course, the first thing he'll think is, "gee, I bet I can hit this higher than my other clubs." What a great golfer has, which is limited to the select hard-working, talented elite, is the complete confidence and trust in his skill to fulfill that visualization.

Don't underestimate the psychological benefits of playing at (what may very well feel like) Tiger's home course. As I proved in another thread, Tiger virtually ALWAYS find the top part of the leaderboard. A lot of other guys, on an off week, are out of it...out-out of it. Even when Tiger's game is a mess, he's near the top. Even as bad as he swung the driver at Augusta, and even including donking a 12" putt, he was just a couple shots out (takeaway Phil's miracle, one-in-a-trillion shot, he's even closer). If even a little bit of 'comfort' puts Tiger in the fairway, say, 6 more times over four days, he most decidedly has a chance, if not becomes the overwhelming favorite. Remember, last week, he had a MOUNTAIN of reasons to shoot 74-75 and go home on Friday, and there he was Sunday right to the end. If he takes a tournament or two to fine-tune his swing and mental game, and goes into the US Open with a little less doubt and weight on his shoulders, look out....

I've been able to feel what's wrong in my swing for a while now, but simply haven't been able to find that 'physical cue' to get me in a better/fixed position, but I finally started to the other day. At the range, I started lining up three shafts (my CGB Max has two extras and I had a broken one laying around). 1 - along my toe line 2 - between my feet and the ball, aligned inside-to-out 3 - just outside the ball, aligned with the target line The ends of #2 and #3 are about, say, 3 balls apart, so they create a 'gate' to swing through, and the lines of #2 and #3 were getting me to visualize an inside approach, to a square/down the line impact. Interestingly, speaking of Tiger's "laying off" move as of late, I found that I needed to lay my club off more, I was keeping my left wrist too cupped at the top, which was encouraging an over-the-top move. I had been doing it so long, I had actually learned to leave the club-face open as I cut across, which led to straight ball flight, but with no power and added loft. Of course, I'd still occasionally flip and just pull the crap out of a shot. I found that laying off the club (a little) flattened my left wrist and put me in a better position to find the slot at the start of the downswing. The last bad habit I found, which has been the most eye-opening, was that my hands themselves need to feel much "lower" through impact. That's allowing them to turn down and over, squaring up the club, as opposed to the 'wrist flip' I had learned. Everything is feeling much more connected and more powerful and I'm actually STRIKING the ball, instead of my just swinging through and slapping the ball on the way by. My driver is a holdout, though, I think the longer swing is just harder to make these corrections in, but that came along a little last time out, so I'm hoping it's just a matter of adapting the above changes to the flatter swing plane and slightly more upright posture, and ingraining the muscle memory.