Alex B

I don't want this to lead to off topic bickering. Rather, I just want to ake some corrections. 1. Good announcing is not predicated on having won major championships. Lanny Wadkins, winner of the 1977 PGA Championship, was a dull, uninformative announcer. Conversely, Peter Alliss, never able to win the prestigious Caret Jug (basically his only oppurtunity to win a major), has defined excellence in golf announcing for decades. Wadkins and Alliss were both great players; was Wadkins the better announcer because Wadkins won a major and Alliss didn't? No. 2. Dottie Pepper, great player though she was, has no more experience than McCord and Feherty at competitive golf. All three found success at the highest level. (Pepper, of course, was the most accomplished.) 3. "But," you argue, "Dottie Pepper competed in the Solheim Cup, and Feherty and McCord never competed in the Ryder Cup." Wrong. Feherty was a member of the 1991 European Ryder Cup squad, amassing a 1-1-1 record (includng a win over Payne Stewart in singles). He also captained Ireland's victorious 1990 Dunhill Cup team, winning the cup in a sudden-death playoff on the 17th at St. Andrew's. Clearly, Feherty knows a thing or two about team competitions. 4. The Mike Tirico argument is ridiculous. Has any lead announcer ever won a major, a Super Bowl ring, a NBA championship, etc.? Of course not.

Match 1: The teams are about equal on paper here, but Harrington has been playing weak lately, and Mickelson never does well in foursomes (Oakland Hills, anybody?) so I'll say the match, led by Kim and Karlsson, is HALVED . Match 2: Four solid players will duke it out here. Ultimately, I like the steely nerves of Casey and Stenson slightly more than Mahan (a rookie with added pressure because of his earlier comments) and Leonard (who has a terrible Ryder Cup record without a win on his resume), so EU, 1 UP . Match 3: Well, Poulter and Rose may be well dressed, but I'm not confident in their play at all. Poulter has had a very mediocre year except for the Open Championship (and will be playing with the added pressure of being a debatable captain's pick), and Rose seems to shy away from big occasions. Cink and Campbell, on the other had, are solid. US, 3&2 . Match 4: Perry's been cold, Furyk is distracted (and rightfully so) because of his wife's situation, and Westwood will ride the wave of a streaking Sergio Garcia, who, in addition to his Ryder Cup prowess, has played top-notch golf this summer. EU, 4&3 . So, those are my predictions for Friday foursomes. It comes out with Europe leading 2.5-1.5. Should be a great morning that foreshadows a classic Sunday finish.

From 6 days ago: So, who wins the show? Seriously, though, nice call.

Agreed. Wasn't Peach using a club as alignment guide during the first tee shot on the par 3? Just throwing it out there... Campbell's ("one team will be eliminated") and Ashes (made clutch 15-footer in clip showing what is upcoming in the show; fell down in (I presume) happiness after receiving ball) won't get the strike. I'd wager that Peach and Jay are going home. We'll see... EDIT (10:52 PM): I was wrong about Peach and Jay, so it looks like Team Boring/Uber-Competitive is going home. Also looks like Charlotte is breaking her "no crying" rule.

When golf is boiled down to its bare essentials, two six-inch paths define a golfer's ability: the path from 2 inches before impact to 4 inches after it, and the path from the left ear to the right. Obviously, good fundamentals and a technically correct swing make consistently solid contact easier to achieve, but the prettiest swing in the world is useless unless it is effective. As you can probably tell, I belong to what you termed it the school of "whatever works": correct impact, not a correct swing, is the secret to playing good golf. (A solid mental game is obviously necessary as well.) I would like to reiterate, however, what I said earlier: good fundamentals and a well-executed swing make solid contact a lot easier. Swing analysts stress the fundamentals and swing positions so much to promote more sold contact, not to design a pretty swing. Too often, struggling golfers, particularly high-handicappers, forget that simple truth.

+1 I've been rereading bits and pieces of Strunk and White lately, and am once again impressed by their succinctness and intelligent humor. The book has undoubtably made me a better writer.

Awesome joke. One should note, however, that the preposition guideline (under my interpretation) suggests that one should not strand a preposition at the end of a clause ; the "bit--" really doesn't change anything in this regard.

I wouldn't be surprised if this took place: [Charlotte and Rob have no strikes; Peach and Jay have one. The other three teams are eliminated.] Voice-over on ad: "In this final installment of Highway 18, a team will be eliminated as we crown our first champion." (And, honestly, a scenario with one team having to beat another team head-to-head twice to win the competition would stink. I hope it doesn't happen.) Another thing that vexes me (and this occurs on the BB series as well) is promo footage that occurs in an episode after the current one. Usually this isn't such a big deal, but, until the episode from which the promo is taken is aired, those shown in the promo will remain on the show. For example, TGC has repeatedly aired the clip of the Ashes chipping in consecutively since the beginning of the show. When it looked like the Ashes were headed for their second strike and elimination in week 3, those who had seen the promo knew they would remain, killing the episode's suspense. Promos and advertisements have worked to the detriment of Highway 18.

Yup, that'd be me. I try to be as mature and objective as I can be on this forum, and I obviously fell flat on my face in this instance. My apologies. OK, let's see how good my math is here... Assuming that each team has an equal chance of coming in last on each episode (they obviously don't, but just go along with me), should R&J; tried to knock off a team or give everyone a strike? If Charlotte and Rob got a strike this previous episode, and the teams were evenly matched, R&J; would obviously have a 20% chance of winning (five teams each with a strike). If Charlotte and Rob remained strikeless and a team was eliminated (the current scenario), R&J; would (in my calculations) have a 18.75% chance of winning. (I'm not going to go through the details, but if anyone is interested or finds that I'm wrong, I'll respond to a PM.) Therefore, R&J; would have been better off trying to give everyone a strike. R&J; may have felt that victory would be easier with a team eliminated, but, since Charlotte and Rob have no strikes (and a whopping 43.75% chance of winning if all teams are equal), theoretically speaking, they were wrong.

I completely agree. It ruined the episode. I thought that the Ashes weren't going home because of the over-the-top editing (but wasn't completely sure), I knew Rob and Charlotte were safe (because the ads for the episode claimed that "a team is going home" or something), Jay and Peach had finished early, Raul and Jameica were in the passing lane, so I figured it had to be Andy and Parker. When they knocked it to four feet, however, I thought I might be wrong ... until there was a clip going to commercial of one of them teeing off again. I mean, c'mon. Absolutely terrible. Killed the suspension in what should have been a tension-filled episode. Not to get OT, but, in addition to having a great personality (go Charlotte and Rob!), she may be the most attractive woman on the golf channel, ever. My goodness. (Now she's going to rip my heart out ala Sam from BB: Ka'anapali. )

According to Scorecard, in my last 32 rounds, I have: 3 birdies on 131 par 3s played (2.29%). 14 birdies on 318 par 4s played (4.40%). 12 birdies on 127 par 5s played (9.45%). So, I make a plurality of my birdies on the par 4s (because they are the most common hole-par by a mile), by my birdie percentage is clearly highest on the par 5s. I don't make many birdies.

Well, my muscles work during sleep. I assume yours do too, or else you wouldn't be alive. (Think: heart.) As a upper-mid handicapper, gaining consistency will lead to gaining distance. It seems that you can hit the ball pretty far on your solid hits (you said 250 in the first post), but that often you hit bad drives that go much shorter. Remember these two principles: 1. A solidly struck shot travels farther than a mishit shot. 2. A straight shot ends up farther down the fairway than a crooked shot. Hitting the ball straight and solidly (i.e., improving your consistency) is probably the best thing you can do at this point to gain distance. Consistency will be more important than distance in the long run as well: my best drive of the day goes no more than 220 yards, but my worst is probably not much shorter, and I keep the ball in play (out of the trees, OB, water, etc.). Distance is overrated. Consistency is not.

Darn! I play a fade in real life (so that's what I selected without thinking), but I would be a draw in this poll. Wish I could recast my ballot.

I see your point, but under further analysis I don't think it holds water. (This is quite a long a unwieldy argument, so beware...) Consider, for example, Shaun Micheel's performance in the 2003 major championships. He played in only one (the PGA Championship) and won it. Therefore, he won 100% of the majors he played; should he have been player of the year? Of course not. In fact, the award that year went to Tiger, who had won five tournaments but no majors. I think we are blinded by the assumption that, since Tiger is so consistently dominant, his second half of this season (if he could compete) would have been as successful as the first. On the other hand, if a regularly solid Tour player (a Chad Campbell or Justin Leonard type) went on a hot stretch in the beginning of the season, picking off several tour wins and a major, and then stopped in June because of an injury, we would not assume that the second half of his would include more wins and majors. We cannot hold different standards for Tiger and a regular tour player; to be fair and impartial, we must assume that the unplayed half of the season held no further wins of successes. Therefore, I hold that Tiger won 25% of this year's majors, and was runner-up in 25% of them, just as Shaun Micheel won 25% of the majors played in 2003. With the unplayed second half of Tiger season discounted, the question between Tiger and Harrington seems to become one of personal tast: would one rather have a season with more accolades but more failures (Padraig's), or one with fewer accolades but fewer failures (Tiger's)? It is akin to the question of whether one would have a double album with 15 good songs and 15 bad ones, or a regular album with 10 good songs and 5 bad ones. Personally, just as I'd take the shorter album, I would take Tiger's season, but this somewhat contradicts what I said earlier. --------------- The debate between Tiger and Harrington as POY also calls into question the nature of the award: is the award based on consistent play, or on moments of brilliance? IMO, poor performances should not hurt a player in determining the winner of the award. Consider this rather drastic scenario: Player A: 20 events played, 6 wins (including 2 majors), 14 missed cuts. Player B: 18 events played, 4 wins (including 1 major), 2 missed cuts. The award, under my interpretation, should go to Player A. Therefore, if one assumes that Padraig's season had more shining moments than Tiger, he should get the award. Based on the numbers, however, I think the shining moments in Tiger's and Padraig's seasons were about the same. Harrington's one extra major and Tiger's two extra wins seem to cancel each other out. In this situation only, however, when two players have achieved roughly the same amount of accolades, should overall consistency (winning percentage, top-ten percentage, cut percentage, etc.) be taken into account. Under this criterion, Tiger clearly wins, and thus he deserves the award. --------------- To conclude, I'd like to revisit Erik's home run analogy. Although not perfect (no analogy can be), I think it does a fairly good job of paralleling this year's POY race. Consider these seasons (Player B sustained an injury halfway through in each): Season 1 Player A: 60 HR in 450 AB. Player B: 40 HR in 200 AB. Although Player B had a better HR-per-AB percentage, Player A should clearly win the title of HR king (if it were voted upon) because he hit far more dingers than Player B. Total HRs should be more important in determining the title than HR-per-AB (what is someone did a Shaun Micheel and had 2 HR in 3 AB or something?). --------------- Season 2 Player A: 50 HR in 450 AB. Player B: 50 HR in 200 AB. These numbers, I think, accurately represent this year's POY race. Since both Player A (Harrington) and Player B (Tiger) finished with the same number of HRs (wins/majors combo), HR-per-AB (winning percentage, consistency, etc.) should determine who is actually the HR king (Player B, or, in our case, Tiger). --------------- For those who think Harrington's accomplishments this season are slightly greater than those of Tiger, I offer a third season: Season 3 Player A: 54 HR in 450 AB. Player B: 50 HR in 200 AB. Now who gets the mythical title of "home run king"? I would probably give the edge to Player B, because the difference in total HRs is miniscule compared to the HR-to-AB percentage. It's a judgment call, however, one that cannot be based purely on statistics, but also on a small amount of feeling. Not to get overly emotional or bring too much empathy and drama into play, but a win on a broken leg has to add a little something, right? I think that little something, when all the statistics and mathematics even out, pushes Tiger over the top. I guess I just went through that whole rambling, that entire rigamarole, to express my simple opinion (barring no unlikely Harrington heroics in the remainder of the season): Tiger Woods - 2008 PGA Tour Player of the Year. (Whew.)

Quick little tidbit about how good the contestants are in real life (i.e., when there not rushing around on the show), as determined by their handicaps listed on GHIN.com: Rob Campbell: 0.5. Makes sense - he has a good swing and a solid all around game. Charlotte Campbell: 0.0. She's on the Duramed Futures tour, so no surprise here. Raul Cendoya: +0.8 and +0.9 (has handicaps out of two different courses). My first impression here was, WTF? But, realize this: Raul has probably made more long putts than the rest of the competitors combined during the course of the show. Just last episode, he made a 15-footer (with an old putter, no less!) in the up-and-down challenge and an 18-footer for birdie to win their semifinal match. It still doesn't seem that he would be a plus handicap, but at least its plausible when considering his putting.

This is slightly OT, but I remember reading in some Johnny Miller article or book that, as a kid, he would count greens hit in a shot less than regulation as 2 GIR. Although not sensible from a statistics standpoint, it is still logical: if hitting 18 GIR and 2-putting each green yields a score of par, hitting 19 GIR (one green hit a stroke under regulation) and 2-putting each green yields a score of one under par. (Johnny then mentioned the round as a kid where he actually hit, by his own counting method, 19 GIR, the round where he took 16 total putts, and of course the round where he shot a good score on a wee track in Pennsylania... )

I didn't either. As for Wie's public speaking difficulties, I think it stems from a fear of saying something for which the media and general public will skewer her. When Wie was younger (around 13 or 14), she was quite well spoken, both humorous and charming. As she entered a career downturn, however, some of her comments were (perhaps) blown out of proportion and used against her. (For example, the "I'm not going to apologize to Annika" comment and the numerous "I've made no mistakes in my career" assertions, a tune which she has recanted.) IMO, she's gotten defensive in her public speaking, and her attempts to avoid a gaffe lead to her bumbling diction and general aphasia. A good comparison would be President Bush: articulate and well-spoken as Texas governor, he public speaking ability has greatly declined under the spotlight of the Presidency. Too defensive against making yet another verbal error, he inarticulately bumbles. Wie has likely succombed to the same pressure and fear as Bush. Either that, or she's on the grass.

Maybe you can only dream of a 24-putt round, Ben, but you know what it feels to have a 23 -putt round! Congrats!

I have the same feeling as you, Dent. All of the ranges near me are artificial mats (so I don't go to them), and the grass range at my course bores me. Here's what I do (you probably need to belong to a small club or play at a quiet muni to do this): Load your bag up with 20 or so golf balls. Go to the course on a quiet afternoon (sometimes I'm the only one there). Find an area of the course where you can see the previous hole(s), so you'll know well in advance when someone is coming up behind you (giving you time to pick up the balls). Then, use the course as your range. You can hit from all distances using real golf balls (not crappy range balls) to a real green (so you can see how the ball reacts) from real grass (not artificial turf or divot-filled range crabgrass). You can practice downhill lies, uphill lies, sidehill lies, rough, bunkers, bizarre shots, etc. You can even putt out. It's fun and never gets dull. Sure, you may look funny, but if there's no one around, who cares?

The greens were indeed green for 71 holes at the 2006 Open... until the 72nd green turned purple ( http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/briti...ory?id=2527860 ). Yeah, and you're right, part of what makes the Open so unique for American fans is the brown greens, unpredictable weather, links layouts, and other things not normally seen here in the States.

Word. Although I may have to put "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Friday Night Lights" just ahead of it.

I completely agree. People overthink matchplay, concerning themselves with head games, concession tactics, and the like. Matchplay, like strokeplay, is golf: the game doesn't change. Don't worry about your opponent; people get so caught up in "I have to make this 15-footer to tie" that they hit a horrible putt well off-line and 10 feet by the cup. When I play seriously (i.e. by myself), I never carry a card; although I know exactly where I stand (can't help that... damn left-brained mind!), I'm assuming the mentality of, "Let's just play and add them up in the end." Obviously, you can't completely have that mentality in matchplay, but IMO you want to be as close to that as possible. Just play the course, not your opponent, and see how the cookie crumbles. Good advice. This way, you won't get into a negative mindset on the next tee about not giving a tap-in or giving a 4-footer. Don't give, and don't expect in return.

Man, all that bickering with no evidence? Here's Ernie with an iron off the tee. The close-up of impact is even closer than that of Tiger's swing that has already been posted. Go the the 0:50 mark for the close-up. The ball is not compressed against the ground. Game over. EDIT: If the video isn't working (because it isn't for me), this like should direct you to the YouTube page. http://tiny.cc/tWqgx Enjoy!

Ben is the man. Nevertheless, I must question the veracity of some other assertions in this post. Hogan never really wanted to play in the Open Championship before 1953. That year, in fact, several other prominent golfers, including friend Jimmy Demaret, had to beg him to compete in the Open; he handed in his entry form just a few hours before the deadline. So I don't think he ever would have said: "I'll never be counted among the greats if I don't win this thing." Maybe in retrospect, after he had won the title, he asserted that all great golfer win the Open or something, but not before his victory (as was implied by the "I'll" and "if" in the quotation). Furthermore, Hogan never played in the PGA Championship from 1948 until 1960 (when the event had switched to a stroke-play format). I believe that his damaged body could not withstand the grueling 36-hole days of match play. So, he probably wasn't choosing the Open over the PGA. Anyway, this is way OT, but oh well. Source: James Dodson, Ben Hogan: An American Life

To: The PGA of America Please make Oakland Hills play fairly easy. I'm tired of all these majors won at or around par. Let's have some birdies! Thanks. Alex B