Alex B

1. Jason Dufner (-5) 2. Fredrik Jacobson (-5) 3. Brendan Jones (-5)

Hunter Mahan E Paul Casey E Mark Wilson E

Yeah, absolutely. For those who didn't hear the interview, here are the relevant snippets (which don't convey Every's frequent pausing and shifting body language): On Hawaii: “This is really just like South Florida or Puerto Rico.” On being arrested for drug charges and suspended from the PGA Tour for three months: “It was all right. I just got three months off; it’s just golf. I don’t think I was doing anything wrong. But, you know, it happened, I’m the same person, I have the same friends, and I don’t think it’s that big a deal. You know, there’s a lot worse stuff that goes on out here than what I got in trouble for, and that’s all I’m gonna say about it.” On what he learned from the experience: “I feel like I’m the same, I really do. Like, I’m maybe a little more responsible, but I’m not like a huge party animal — I mean, I’m married, I got a kid on the way. It’s, it’s, I just like to live … I just like to live , and, you know, whatever happened happened.” Nick Faldo’s reaction: “My first advice to that man would be to get some PR advice, because I personally don’t think he did himself any favors in not being able to respond positively about himself, just sitting there going ‘well, I’m just the same’ is not … I personally don’t think that’s good.” It's hard not to agree.

Well, based on his comments in this article , he's going to struggle to win Open Championships and other majors played in foul weather. Guy not only admits that he's a bad wind player, but also seems not at all keen on getting better.

Craig Wood, 1941 Masters and US Open is the only example that comes to mind. I agree with you about Rory: he'll play solidly here (top 10) before winning in Atlanta. PGA likely will have conditions similar to Congressional.

Quick question: does anyone know what happened with Jacobson's tee shot on 15? I was standing behind the green and it seemed as if he nearly skulled it into the pond right in front of the tee; the ball, coming in super low, just landed on the fairway and then rolled 100 or so yards to about 40 yards short of the green. (He would par.)

OK, Let's review. No. I shot 161 to finish (I think) 14th. Had 6 birdies over the 36 holes but also 5 doubles and a triple -- kinda the opposite of my usual game. I did win $75 in a Skins competition we held based on our hole-by-hole scores, however, so it wasn't all bad. 1/2. I got much longer off the tee during the summer (up to 240 with the driver, and much longer with the irons, too) but regressed this fall during the college golf season. Yes. Shot 157 and 159 in the first two tournaments I played this fall. Yes. I got down to a 3.8 this summer. No. My practice habits weren't great this year, and I still don't know jack about my golf swing. Yes! I shot 71 (-1) at my home course on August 17th. 1/2. I was better on the 385-420 yard par 4s over the summer because I was able to reach them with long/mid-irons. I also performed a "lay up" strategy over the summer by which I avoided shots from 30-90 yards (because I had the shanks!) -- since I could reach pretty much all par 4s over the summer, I used this strategy mostly on par 5s, so it doesn't really apply to this question. This fall, as I got much shorter off the tee again, I again performed poorly on long par 4s and failed to use a proper lay up strategy, instead leaving myself many awkward 50-yard pitches. (Fortunately the shanks went away in late August -- unfortunately, my game went with them. It's odd that I played my past golf of the year (July/early August) with significant shanking problems.) 1/2. In what seems a common theme, I had this goal achieved over the summer, but lost it somewhat in the college golf season this fall. 1/2. This one irks me. I hit three par 5s in two this year from the member tees, which isn't legit enough to leave me completely satisfied. I hit over a par 5 in two from the tips in mid-summer when the course was extremely firm. And the final day before I left for college in early September, I would have had a par 5 hit in two from the tips save for a spongy patch of fairway that was under construction -- the ball landed there and all but plugged, eight feet short of the green. So I'm still searching ... Victory. Destroyed the second of the three sessions -- actually won the Sand Trap league by more than 100 points that session. The other two sessions weren't great, but that second session carried me through. Uh, no. My little sisters can beat me up. I have the strength of a library nerd, which I am. Yes. Sometimes I went out expressly for the purpose of goofing around and didn't follow the rules, but I don't recall quitting on a legitimate round halfway through. Yup. (5)(1) + (4)(1/2) = 7, so I made the meta-goal. In addition to shooting under par, I made a hole-in-one in March and won my town's mini-golf course's championship in August, so it was a special year for me golf-wise. As I grow older I expect to spend less time around the game, so 2010 may go down as my best year in golf.

Woods, Z. Johnson, Cink, Fowler.

What course is this? That hole looks awesome.

From Phil's post-round interview : Q. What was it about Pebble Beach today that was so difficult that nobody was able to sink their teeth in and shoot a 66? PHIL MICKELSON: I'm not really sure. I kind of know, but I would rather not get into it. It just doesn't sound good. I mean it was just tough. It was a tough day on the golf course. Do you think Phil was referring to the bumpiness of the greens or something else?

As Shindig said, there's one winner of each major each year, so they're all about equally difficult to win. I'd said maybe the Masters is the toughest to win because the same guys always play well in it (not surprising, considering that the tournament is always held on the same course) -- Jack, Arnie, Player, Tiger, Phil, Ballesteros, Norman (though he never won), Faldo, Fred Couples, etc. So if you're one of those top-level players who always plays well at Augusta, the Masters is the easiest to win. If you're an average tour pro, however, it's likely the most difficult. I mean, how many Shawn Micheels have come out of the blue to win the Masters?

You're missing the point of my argument, which is purely about the definition of "straighten." My point is that there's no "starts to straighten" -- either something is straighted (i.e., made completely straight) or it's not straightened. Yes, on the backswing the right leg should partially unflex. No, it should not straighten, since straighten = become straight = lock.

As several others have noted, the definition of straighten is plaguing this thread. The central question is this: does straighten mean only “to make straight,” or both "to make straight" and “to make straighter”? It's worth looking for a moment at -en verbs. These turn an adjective (say, X ) into a verb that means "to make [the direct object] X ." So loosen means "to make [object] loose," tighten means "to make [object] tight," and the same model applies to harden , soften , freshen , lighten , dampen , brighten , darken , lessen , sweeten , weaken , toughen , gladden , etc. Slight variations occur with lengthen (= long-en) and hasten (because it is usually intransitive). (Note: I found most of these verbs in this academic article .) The adjectives made into -en verbs fall into two categories: relative and absolute. An academic article at the University of Maryland's website explains this distinction well. So let's contrast tighten , an -en verb constructed from a "relative" adjective, with straighten , an -en verb constructed from an "absolute" adjective (as the above paragraph notes). Tighten , according to the OED , means "to draw tight or tighter." The first part, “to draw tight,” comes from the general pattern of -en verbs described above: they turn an adjective (say, X) into a verb that means "to make [the direct object] X." The second part, “to draw … tighter,” comes from the fact that tight is a relative adjective (after all, a belt tight on one person may be loose on another). When X tightens Y, X may or may not have made Y tight. Who's to say what is tight in this circumstance? Tight 's relativeness necessitates tighten 's second meaning: we can conclude only that X made Y tighter , not necessarily that X made Y tight . The term "relative" itself also suggests the comparative quality inherent in tight : relative = relating things = comparing things. Straight , on the other hand, is an absolute quality. Something is either straight, or it’s not. If something is not straight, then it’s bent -- there’s no middle road. As such, the OED defines straighten as "to make straight (what is bent or crooked)"; secondary definitions list figurative meanings and do not include “to make straighter.” We don’t need this second meaning because straight is defined absolutely: regardless of context we can tell whether or not something is straight. So straighten means to make something have the absolute quality of straightness. ( Tighten means to make something have the relative quality of tightness, i.e., have tightness relative to its earlier state, i.e., be tighter than it was.) Another example: Let's contrast darken and blacken . Consider a room with windows. If one turns off the lights in the middle of a sunny day, one has slightly darkened the room yet not made the room dark , only darker . If one turns off the lights in twilight, one has not blackened the room, as it has become only blacker , not black . This distinction occurs because dark is a relative adjective, black an absolute one. In conclusion, straighten means only "to make straight," not "to make straighter." So let's come up with a way to better express the point of this thread -- I suggest "partially unflex," but surely someone can think of a cleverer word or phrase.

I'm predicting a Ricky Barnes-Ian Poulter final pairing on Sunday.

Discuss ...