Alex B

I was at Bethpage today from about 9:00 until a bit after the stoppage of play. Here are things I observed in that brief time. Players and play. Tee-time issues. It seems that the groups of Kittleson/Bae/Sim (7:11 off the back) and Slocum/Wi/Bland (7:22 off the back) began in the opposite order than they should have. If you look at the leaderboard, you'll notice that Slocum, Wi, and Bland have all completed eight holes, whereas Bae and Sim have finished only seven. A bunch of us noticed this in the grandstands behind the simple 14th hole (an ~160 yard par 3), where my dad and I sat for four groups. Andrew Parr. After cutting a significant amount of the dogleg on the opening hole, he took forever to hit his short-iron approach. The crowd's mutterings, however, turned to cheers when he stuck his ball within four feet of the cup. He would birdie. Graeme McDowell. He curled in a lovely 20-foot birdie putt from above the 14th hole. The best putt I saw all day. Andrew Svoboda. He had a similar putt to that of McDowell, but didn't fare as well. After bombing his birdie try five feet past, he either shoved or misread the shorty coming back uphill. Then came the shocker: Svoboda rushed the tap-in (about 9 inches) for bogey, power-lipping it three feet by. He grimly rushed to his ball and in one motion slapped it at (and fortunately in) the hole for a pathetic and quite unprofessional double bogey. After doubling 15 as well, Svoboda is +7 through 6 holes and all but done for the tournament. Chad Campbell. He pulled a 12-footer for birdie on 14 so badly that it didn't come within a foot of the hole as it passed by. Beautiful swing; wretched putting stroke. Steve Stricker. Stricks stuck an iron eight feet below the 14th hole, then missed the putt. He looked calmer than usual -- I hope his recent win may give him the confidence to overcome the nevres that have plagued him toward the end of majors (especially on short putts). The Furyk/Ogilvy/Casey pairing. All three hit middling irons to the left side of the green and would two-putt for par. Their demeanors, however, were quite loose: Casey and Ogilvy (decently good friends at Whisper Rock) were talking coming up to the green, and Furyk looked exceptionally calm. These three guys all have a shot -- I wouldn't be surprised if the group's good vibe carries them each into the top 10 come the third round. Miguel Angel Jimenez. Hit a terrible putt from 10 feet on the 13th hole, then shook his head slowly. Didn't look confident. The course and layout. The opening tee. The lack of fairway bunkers on the first hole creates a cool effect: you see only rough and fairway (plus a few trees), so the task becomes very simple and uncluttered -- either you hit the strip of short grass, or you don't. No options or room for bailing out; no thinking-man's golf to ease one into the round. A true test of nerves and skill. The turn. Unlike most American courses, the 9th hole doesn't come back to the clubhouse. In fact, must like the Old Course, holes 7 through 11 make a sort of loop as far from the clubhouse as possible. We were trying to catch Tiger in the loop, but the horn sounded. The 12th and 13th holes. Exceedingly long and difficult. I couldn't believe where the guys were hitting their third shots from on 13 (the long par 5) -- most must've been hitting mid-irons into the green. We were walking down these holes when play was suspended. The 14th hole. I really like this little par three. Although it's a birdie hole meant mostly for it's aesthetic qualities, the sloping green is no pushover. In addition, the fescue-ringed bunkers flanking the green (although mostly cosmetic for the Open -- all twelve pros we saw on 14 easily hit the large surface) look brutally tough. The 15th and 17th holes. I saw each only from a distance, but they look exceptionally difficult (and they're each beautiful holes, to boot). Fifteen may be a bit shorter than some of Bethpage's other par 4s, but it plays tough (it was the hardest hole in 2002): the uphill rise to the green is severe. The 18th hole. After reading a good deal about how much 18 sucks, I was pleasantly surprised. The hole looks great and shouldn't be a total pushover -- just as with the 15th, a massive incline to the green will toughen the hole. A classic-looking finishing hole with a massive grandstands behind and to the right of the green. The rough. It's bad but not impossible. I reached my hand under the ropes and felt a bit -- it's gnarly, to be sure, and dense and decently tall as well, but you won't be seeing many pitches out sideways. It's lush greenness makes it look really neat, both from close up and from far away. Anyway, that's my spiel; feel free to ask questions. Alex

Rocco has played in 12 events this year and made the cut every time (though his best finish is T22). He knows how to get to the weekend; he'll finish around 50th at Bethpage.

TW. Non-Tiger division: Brian Gay. Winning Score: 275 (-5).

Glad to have you on board. I'm another diehard CT golfer. Quick question: where do you play/practice? A good friend of mine and I are looking to play a bunch of different public courses this summer, just so we don't get stuck at the same few private facilities every day -- we're scoping it out to find some new tracks.

Pretty simple answer: There are more golfers with an ace than with a round under par. There are more rounds under par than with an ace. The great majority of under-par rounds are shot by a very small minority of the golfing public who shoot such scores frequently. The distribution of holes-in-one is spread among all qualities of golfers; a great deal of frequent golfers get one at some point or another during their career, including many who couldn't sniff 90, much less a sub-par score. Interesting (I think) side question: What handicap of golfer is equally likely to have a hole-in-one or shoot under par on any given day? Obviously, a 3 handicap is way more likely to shoot under par (as he probably does several times a year), whereas a 20 handicap is way more likely to nab an ace. What's the middle point? (Maybe around a 10 handicap -- one or two magical days in his life, and one or two aces as well.)

Nor should he have been, as he was playing with the lead all day. Although he wanted to stretch his lead to an extent, trying to force a birdie or two at Augusta can quickly lead to bogey or worse. I thought he played steady, attacking-but-defensive (playing to safe spots, but being aggressive when the opportunity presented itself) golf all day. Consider his first eleven pars: Hole 1: two-putt par from 20 feet (mud on ball on approach shot) Hole 2: two-putt par from 10 feet (had to lay up because of poor drive) Hole 3: two-putt par from 30 feet Hole 4: two-putt par from 25 feet Hole 5: two-putt par from 20 feet Hole 6: up-and-down par (poor iron) Hole 7: two-putt par from 5 feet (aggressive iron) Hole 8: two-putt par from 15 feet (went for green in two; had impossible 3rd) Hole 9: sand save for par (poor iron) Hole 10: two-putt par from 30 feet Hole 11: two-putt par from 15 feet (how did that putt stay out?) Although KP certainly played conservative golf, I wouldn't say he played defensively at all. He assured himself of a two-putt par in most situations while usually giving himself reasonable birdie opportunities. Looking back, it was probably the two par fives on the front nine (and the missed putt at 7) that he will regret the most from these first eleven holes.

Players who have won at least two majors since 2000: 1. Tiger (12 wins) 2. Phil (3 wins) 3. Paddycakes (3 wins) 4. The Goose (2 wins) 5. The Big Fijian (2 wins) 6. El Pato (2 wins) Way to go, Angel. I'll eschew the obligatory Andy North joke because you're way better than he ever was...

I recently heard an interesting comment from one of the media's talking heads about Perry. The analyst noted that KP was one of very few players who had given his reputation a complete overhaul late in his career -- he had gone from being "the guy who blew the PGA at Valhalla" to "the guy who helped the US win back the Ryder Cup." Unfortunately, I'm afraid, Perry has once again rewritten the summary of his career: he's now "the guy who blew two majors." I hope this loss doesn't reduce his reputation -- after all, it's better to puke into 2nd than to amble into T34 -- but I bet his standing has been sullied once again. This is somewhat sad, for any high finish this week should serve only to further the case for Perry as a legitimate contender who kept up the good play into his late forties. I hope fans will remember Perry's remarkable play (not only this week, but also for the last year) while pondering his epic collapse.

Nice. I'll be playing TP South on March 12 (a week from today); we tee off at 10:30. I'm pumped. My school golf team also plays at Wintonbury Hills , which is one of the best courses in Connecticut. Though it's not a rival to Torrey, playing Wintonbury -- or at least practicing at its facilities -- nearly every day for two months is a real treat.

Quick corollary question: If an eighteen-hole match ends, let's say, 8&7, so the competitors only play 11 holes instead of the 13 required to post a score (assuming they walk in after the match has been closed out), do they post nine-hole scores? Similarly, if a nine-hole match ends 5&3, do the competitors, having played fewer holes (six) than the seven needed to input a nine-hole score, post no scores at all?

I too love match play and agree that it can be very exciting ... with two caveats. First, the traditional argument against holding more match play events: the superstar players often lose early. Ogilvy-Casey, although a match-up featuring two of the best 25 players in the world, does draw any firepower or celebrity interest. Without Tiger, Phil, or Sergio (and maybe a few others) in the latter stages of the tournament, the TV ratings are bound to flop. But honestly, I don't care about TV ratings or world golf rankings or any of that superficial stuff. Hell, I'm watching the Mayakoba Classic right now, and I already know the results. Now that's lame. My real problem with match play, therefore, has nothing to do with the field's quality or the event's Q rating. Instead, my issue stems from a reality inherent in match play: the tournament gets less exciting as the week progresses . Think about it: in the first few rounds, everyone is playing, coverage can jump from exciting match to exciting match, snoozefests can be ignored. From the quarterfinals on, however, we're stuck with the few matches being played; the broadcast shows lots of dead air and lopsided results. This great flaw in match play climaxes tomorrow, Sunday, when only the championship and consolation matches are played. Unlike a regular stroke play tournament, during which we focus on just two guys only as the final group comes up the 18th hole, the first round of tomorrow's championship match will feature two warriors battling merely for position before the true blood begins to be shed in the afternoon. In other words, BORING. Eighteen holes, after which someone is 2 UP and no one cares. One could skip the morning round and not miss anything, right? But wait -- when the champion is determined on the first 18 holes, and the afternoon round consists only of a perfunctory 11 holes to close out an 8&7 victory (or something along those lines), the morning round held all the action. Thus, we the viewers are faced with a depressing choice: do we watch the morning 18 and hope that something interesting actually happens, or tune in only for the second half, hoping that neither player pulled away early on? It's a miserable conundrum. Nor is the Accenture's disappointing final day alleviated during Sunday's latter half: we face the prospects of a foregone champion and the usual bathos of the consolation match. Last year, in fact, after Tiger had closed out Cink 8&7, the third-place battle went on for another hour -- Tiger was in the booth, listening to Johnny Miller ask him annoying swing questions, when a meaningless match was not even near it's conclusion! On the PGA Tour, we occasionally must watch the last group stumble up to the 18th green with the winner already determined; during the last year's Accenture, this meaningless twosome played not half a hole alone on the course but about four. (Quick proposal for a slightly better Sunday: cut the championship match to 18 holes, ensuring at least a tolerable, somewhat gripping conclusion and assuaging viewers' agony over whether or not to watch the morning eighteen. Also, start the consolation match an hour before the finals: such a move would virtually guarantee that the last match on the course determines the tournament's champion, not the third-place finisher.) So, although I enjoy the Accenture tournament, I don't think the PGA Tour should hold another match play event. The Accenture works for two primary reasons: it has a novel format and the best players in the world. Another match play tour stop would lose these two qualities: it would be imitative and likely couldn't draw even half of the world's 64 best players, much less the two or three top dogs who determine an event's general interest and allure to the masses. The tour banks on Sundays; an event with traditionally crummy Sundays and without the Accenture's special status (which would in fact be undermined by a second match play event) would founder in generating any buzz whatsoever. Alex

You've made this point before, and I've countered it before . But, I'll do it again here. With your logic, it's not fair to British golfers of the late 19th century that they could play in only one major, the Open Championship. Therefore, we'll discount every major except for the Open. Similarly, it's not fair to American golfers of the 1930s-50s that they often couldn't afford to fly to Britain and play the Open. Therefore, we'll discount the Open. The new list looks like this: T1. Alex B -- 0 majors T1. PEZGolf -- 0 majors T1. My twin brothers (3 years old) -- 0 majors You get my point. You've said this before -- in this post you called it "one of the greatest shots in Major Championship history." I disagree. Harrington was up by two strokes on the 17th hole, any had only a simple par 5 (17) and a fairly difficult par 4 (18) left to play. He could have hit that 5-wood basically anywhere and still parred 17, made a simple bogey on 18, and won by a shot. A great shot, indeed, and certainly the shot of the championship, but was it all that important? Nah.

Tiger is already up to 13 straight years, so... On this note, what's the record for most consecutive years winning a major? I couldn't find any info on this, so I've created this list (which probably is missing a few entries): 8 Years : Bobby Jones (1923-30)* 6 Years : Walter Hagen (1924-9) 4 Years : Jack Nicklaus (1970-3) Tom Watson (1980-3) Tiger Woods (1999-2002; 2005-2008) 3 Years : Young Tom Morris (1868-70)** Jamie Anderson (1877-9) Bob Ferguson (1880-2) Harry Vardon (1888-900) Willie Anderson (1903-5) Ralph Guldahl (1937-9) Peter Thompson (1954-6) Arnold Palmer (1960-2) Jack Nicklaus (1965-7) Phil Mickelson (2004-6) * This figure includes the US and British Amateurs; it probably isn't fair that I counted these tournaments for no one but Jones. In strictly professional majors, Jones's best streak is two years (achieved twice). ** Because there were no majors held in 1871, and Young Tom won the Open in 1872, one could say that he won a major for four straight years in which a major was held . -------------- I doubt that Tiger could ever surpass Jones's record of 8 straight years in which he won at least 1 major ; since Tiger currently sits on 4 straight years with a major, he would need to win one every year through 2013 to overtake Jones. Possible (especially since he's Tiger), but IMO unlikely. Exceeding Hagen's mark of 6 straight years with a professional major seems a more feasible task -- Tiger could pass the Haig in 2011. Alex

Ernie Els who has 16 tour wins will finish his career with 20+ total wins? True. Remember, even in his crummy 2008 season, he won an event. He'll sneak in 4 more wins (but no more majors) before he's through. Anthony Kim will win a major in the next 3 years Tough one, but I'm going to say no. Just a gut feeling. Phil Mickelson will win a major this year? No. Phil will never win another major. Tiger will win a major this year? Yes. He's won majors 9 of 12 years in his professional career, so it's hard to bet against him. Vijay Singh will tear it up 2009. 1 major and/or 5 tournement wins? No chance. Three wins max; Vijay's done with majors. (His last ten majors include five missed cuts, with his best finish a T14. His wretched putting stroke doesn't hold up well on the toughest greens.) Which young gun in your opinion has the best chance of winning 20 wins in his career. Probably Anthony Kim; nonetheless, the way Camilo Villegas finished 2008, he's in the running as well.

Players: Rory, Sergio, Woody : Bragger, Spitter, Cheater Gary Player : I greatly respect all he did years ago, but it's time for him to go away. John Daly : Ditto. Christina Kim : She seems to think she's hot stuff; she's not. ---------- Announcers: The NBC Announcing Team : I actually like most of the individual announcers (including Johnny, most of the time), but the crew as a whole is way too concerned with picayune details. Does it break 6 inches or a half-foot right? Is it into the grain or against the grain? Is the lie half-decent or average? Did I shoot a 63 at Oakmont or 8-under-par? (You get my point.) Jim Nantz : Must every Masters telecast be preceded by ten minutes of saccharine pomp? Screw tradition and azaleas -- show me some golf. ---------- Journalists: Tim Rosaforte : He treats all the trivial information he digs up as if it's earth-shattering news. "Gary Player called Trevor Immelman and told him to stay relaxed." Armageddon is here!

In the present: Tiger, first and foremost, because he is the consummate golfer and a complete stud. Padraig, because he is so clutch. Justin Leonard, because of his putting stroke. (Not to mention that he's a great guy as well.) Brandt Snedeker, because of his on- and off-course playfulness and smiles. (I'm surprised more people haven't named Brandt.) Morgan Pressel, because of her passion. ------------------------------------ In the past: Ben Hogan, because of his quiet confidence and refusal to quit. Harry Vardon, because of his class and unparalleled success. Craig Wood, because he fought so tenaciously before he finally won the big one. Ken Ventui, because he fought so tenaciously before he finally won the big one. Harry Cooper, because he fought so tenaciously and never won the big one. Harvie Ward, because of his brilliance in a career cut short over technicalities.

I didn't; I'm 17. A good friend of mine and fellow classmate - we take a Presidential election class together - didn't receive an absentee ballot in the mail, and thus took a train from Connecticut (the location of our school) to New Jersey (his home state), voted, and then rode back. Now that's dedication. (A local newspaper in NJ picked up on his story and reported it here .)

This is a mature and insightful statement. Rather than rejecting Obama fully, Smallville (if I read his post correctly) is giving the President-elect a "temporary mandate" of sorts so that Obama has a chance to do good for the country; in other words, Smallville has placed the interests of his country above his own political interests. It's refreshing to hear someone with this opinion in today's extreme partisanship. Smallville's statement reminds me of what John Wayne, a die-hard Republican and avid Nixon supporter, said about Kennedy (who defeated Nixon) in 1960: "I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job."

I'm going to be a senior (and likely the team captain) this year. As my handicap indicates, I really don't have a chance of making a college golf team, especially where I'm applying to college (mostly Ivy league schools, which are solid D1 programs). I'll take intellectual pursuits over golf any day. (Obviously, I'd rather play golf than study, but a good school off the team is far better in the future than a bad school on the team. Heck - I don't want to jinx myself here - I'm applying early to a school with a world-famous golf course, so college golf without a team might not be bad at all...)

The strange thing is, I discovered this little game about a week ago and played it a few times. My best score was 4.74, which I was proud of until you guys came along. The main site, incidentally, is run by a man who makes contraptions out of wood. My favorite is the binary adding machine ( http://woodgears.ca/marbleadd/index.html ) - unbelievably cool, especial when you watch the youtube video on the page! What a cool site. Just got a 3.19... good, but I've gotta get into the 2s...

Charlotte - it's so great to have you here! 1. During your time at Rollins, you were national player of the year four times and won two national titles. What was that experience like? How good was your competition? 2. The producers of Highway 18 pulled a lot of tricks on the viewers (superlegs, the two-strike eliminations, etc.). How many of these tricks did you know about before the episode was filmed? In addition, the producers didn't tell us about some elements of the show (such as driving time-penalties); we found these out from GolfGal's interviews and blog posts. What other events took place in the show that we don't know about? 3. What would you like to see different about the next installment of Highway 18? 4. Did H18 make most teammates closer or more distant? Also, did you make friends with some of the other contestants, or was it purely competitive? 5. What are your plans for life? Do you have anything in mind if competitive golf doesn't pan out? Again, well done on the show and welcome to The Sand Trap! Alex

That sucks, but you can drop in pre-show if you like and discuss the series if you'd like...

As I did for the finale of Big Break Ka'anapali, I've started an AIM chat room entitled "h18finale" (without quotes) to discuss tonight's proceedings. I'll be logged in until the show has ended; I probably won't actively check the chat room, however, until around 9:30. (I have homework and other matters to tackle.) Anyway, I hope some of you guys join. I know that there are a great many of you interested in the show, and thus I am confident that we can have a turnout greater than that of BB Ka'anapali (when it was a one-on-one chat between Erik and me for the vast majority of the show). Please drop in.

GG: Is Jay saying in his interview that the Highway 18 producers told him and Peach that they had to finish last? If that's true, I've lost a lot of respect for the show. I'm not a fan of scripted programming: I don't watch the WWE or any of that crap. This show has consistently claimed to be a competition in which the best team, not the team the producers want, wins. True, Jay's injury may have affected the finale. True, it would have made for less a entertaining episode. But to comprise the integrity of the competition for ratings and a slight edge in quality strikes me as somewhat amoral and deceptive. (Besides, wouldn't it be entertaining to watch Jay struggle with one wrist, he and Peach trying to script one of the greatest underdog stories in reality TV history? There are few greater dramas in sports than the injured or ill athlete trying to compete: think Willis Reed in the 1969 NBA Finals, Joe Montana in the "Chicken Soup Game," Tiger at Torrey Pines. Perhaps Jay's injury made further place impossible, but, if not, I contend that the episode would be more interesting than one with all healthy teams.) The producers of Highway 18 have tricked and deceived us to the point of irritation, even exasperation with the show's assembly. A few curveballs thrown into a reality show for either expedience or shock value are fine. Consider, however, the two-strike elimination, the two super-legs, the speed-related time penalties, the scrapped putting challenge at Mar-a-Lago that forced the teams' times of arrival to be discounted, the intended three-team finale that would discount all prior strikes even if only two teams remained, and now this revelation (if I understood correctly) that the producers forced Jay and Peach to lose: all are fragments of Highway 18's mass chicanery that the producers either reveal after the fact or conceal completely. All are incidents that compromise the integrity of Highway 18. (Don't get me wrong, however: I love the show. It's way better than Big Break. Go Charlotte and Rob!)

More bad promos by TGC, so don't click on the spoiler if you don't what to find out... http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=23853&select2;=10357 "Another team hits the end of the road ... find out the final two teams." This puts the show in the bad position of having one team have to defeat Charlotte and Rob twice , which saps excitement. Note this: the golf channel's website only lists two new episodes, tomorrow and September 30 (the latter of which is titled "The Finish Line"). This means either Charlotte and Rob win on the first of two tries, or the winner of that final show is automatically the winner of the competition. (Rob and Charlotte would probably receive a 10-minute time bonus or something along those lines for going in to the last episode with no strikes.) This news bodes well for Rob and Charlotte fans