Rudyprimo

I don't know why someone would want to wear that jacket when they make the same thing for men, minus the hourglass shape outline of the white. But, whatever. Surprised the sales person had to tell you it was a woman's jacket. The size 10 on the hangar, and the 12 behind that one, and the 14 behind that one should have tipped you off. I would never wear a woman's jacket like that. But if it comes down to wearing your wife's or girlfriend's thong............ j/k

I'd be more surprised if Tiger wasn't taking PED's. Tiger was being treated by Dr. Galea, a Canadian doctor not licensed in the US. Dr. Galea was convicted and admitted treating athletes here in the US between 2007-2009. He was known for treating athletes with HGH and other PED's. Really Tiger, the doc never gave you PED's? Then there's the list from Biogenesis in Florida. It contains the names of over 100 athletes who were buying PED's from them. NFL players, MLB players, Golfers, Tennis players and MMA fighters are on the list. Each governing bodies of the sports mentioned were given the names of athletes on the list. Tin Finchem said "We are not going to release the names of golfers on the list". Golfers, plural. Which golfers seem to be the likely steroid users? Which golfers had a sudden and unnatural change to their body type? Jason Duffner, Colt Knost and Kevin Stadler? Or Tiger, Lee Westwood and Rory McIlroy to name a few. Is Rory following in Tigers footsteps? Switched to Nike and moved to Florida, where Biogenesis is located incidently. Did Tiger tutor him on Ped use? Or at least give him the names of who to see? Tiger and A-Rod are buddies and A-Rod admits using PED's he bought from Biogenesis. Athletes seem to help each other out on how to use PED's properly and where to obtain them. Someone else on here mentioned the sudden transformation of Rory as proof that Tiger dodin't need PED's to get big and muscular. I think it's more probable Tiger "helped" Rory on how to get bigger and more muscular. If it's not Tiger and maybe Rory that Finchem is trying to protect then who are they?

Bounce is the angle of the sole to the ground. If the clubshaft is perpendicular to the ground, the leading edge of the face is not touching the ground. The bounce is the angle from where the sole touches the ground to the leading edge of the face. More bounce, like 14° and higher, allows the club to go through deep rough and fluffy sand without digging into the ground or sand too deep. Low bounce, like 10° or less, is better for hitting from the fairway, baked ground or compacted sand, where you need to bite or dig into the ground or sand. It is a big help to use the wedge with the right amount of bounce depending on where your ball lies.

People are way too sensitive nowadays. Sergio was giving Tiger a little dig but what's the big deal about making a comment about ethnic food. This is the big news in sports right now? I don't remember Blacks making a big deal about the movie, Be Cool, where The Rock kept saying he was hungry for fried chicken and waffles. So what situation makes it a ghastly racial slur? Let's be truthful now, Blacks make fun of what White people eat too. Mayonnaise and white bread ring a bell? And so on and so forth with other ethnic groups and food. And of course there's the double standard out there. I remember when Fuzzy made his comments about Tiger, some writers dared bring up the racial stereotypes Woods had spoken about before. Such as " Why do White women go after Black athletes. Do they really think it's true what they say about Black men?" That's way more demeaning than saying something about food but the press rallied around Tiger, making excuses for him like saying "Well, he's a young guy and doesn't know better than to say something like that." Really? And Tiger is going to make a comment about how hurt he is over what Sergio said? What a hypocrite.

Here's a link for the USGA's explanation of rule 33-7, the rule I explained but the one you don"t understand. http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/Rule-Revised-On-DQ-For-Incorrect-Card/ It says they can waive the DQ if the player had no way of knowing he broke the rule and signed an incorrect scorecard. It explains it has to do with modern technology ie.,slow motion HD replay. There's no need for any replay in Tiger's case, he freely admits he dropped in a different spot. He didn't realize he was breaking a rule and that is NEVER an excuse for not being penalized. As soon as the rules committee approached him about the infraction, Tiger knew he committed a penalty. Just because the committee says they didn't see it doesn't absolve Tiger from calling it on himself. Exactly like the Bobby Jones incident. Rule 33-7/4.5 is the revision to rule 33-7 and is the only applicable rule. When there is a revision to a rule that has to be followed. They made the revision so a committee couldn't waive the DQ without having a very good reason to apply it. And I really don't care what you or anyone else wrote on the thread. Everything I wrote is fact. Anything else is a cover up. And yeah, Tiger was pretty stupid for opening his mouth in the interview. He thought everything was taken care of. And like I said, when he freely admitted he dropped 2 yards farther back that sent the committee into damage control mode. Tiger opened his mouth and blew it. If Tiger would have brought up he dropped farther back when the committee first approached him, what an honorable man would do, he would have taken the penalty and that would have been the end of it. Instead, the committee lied and tried to give him a break, it's very clear where he dropped it, and Tiger kept his mouth shut and went along with it. He cheated. And if you and practically everyone else want to lie and twist things around, go right ahead. And golf is played on a course, not a stadium, and I'm firmly entrenched in it with my explanation.

Just my take on it, Tiger purposely dropped 2 yards behind the original spot not realizing he was breaking a rule. As soon as the rules committee approached and explained what they were looking at Tiger knew he had committed a penalty even though the rules committee(wink, wink) said they couldn't see where Tiger had dropped. A golfer is supposed to call a penalty on himself when he knows he committed a foul. Tiger kept his mouth shut and that amounts to cheating, figuring well if the rules committee didn't see it I'm not going to call it on myself even though I know I didn't drop in the original spot. Everything would have been alright until Tiger opened his mouth while being interviewed and admitted he didn't drop in the original spot. That sent the rules committee into damage control mode and wonder of wonders they saw the infraction while viewing the video again. They then invoked the rule even though it does not apply to Tigers situation. The rule, as explained on the USGA website, is for when a golfer doesn't physically feel an infraction, like double hitting a chip or brushing the back wall of a deep bunker on his backswing. In those cases, they wouldn't DQ the golfer because the only way it showed up was by watching slow motion replays on TV. There was no such thing with Tiger, he knew exactly where he dropped it. He should have called the penalty on himself as soon as the rules committee brought it to his attention. When Bobby Jones called that famous penalty on himself at the 1925 US Open, his playing partner, Walter Hagen, tried talking him out of it because he didn't see anything. A USGA official argued with Jones after his round and before he signed his scorecard that they didn't see the penalty and he shouldn't call it. Jones is an honorable man and did the right thing. Even though the rules committee said they didn't see an illegal drop Tiger knew where he dropped it and didn't call the penalty on himself. That amounts to cheating in golf.

It's always better to try a club first but buying one used makes it hard. As far as where to look there's ebay of course and Global Golf and Callaway Pre-owned are good places to look. Any of the big manufacturers are good and being a high handicapper you might want a driver with a draw bias. I also think the flex and weight of the shaft would be more important than the head itself.

CBS was there to cover a sporting event and that's what they did. Viewers tune in to watch golf, not to listen to anything else. If CBS wanted to cover any exclusionary policies there, they can do an episode of 60 minutes on it. It's a well known fact and public knowledge concerning their policies there. There's nothing new or earth shattering to report on. Costas is just another pasty assed white guy full of guilt for being rich and in the top 1%, so he has to try to atone for his "sins" by getting political on TV.

The rules committee and watching the replay shouldn't even figure into this. Tiger dropped 2 yards behind his original shot. He said so in the interview. Whether he knew he was breaking a rule or not doesn't matter either. Ignorance of a rule is never an excuse for not being penalized. Tiger should have done the right thing and DQ'd himself. Instead he let the rules committee muddle everything up. As soon as the rules committee said they didn't see him take an illegal drop, why didn't Tiger man up and tell them that yeah, I dropped 2 yards behind the original shot? He admitted that was what he did shortly after talking to the rules committee when he was being interviewed. Also, this rule 33-7 shouldn't even be applied to this incident. That's not what it was intended for as explained on the USGA website. It was intended for a player committing a penalty and not physically knowing it, and the only way you can tell there was a penalty is through the use of super slow motion replay. They give two examples. One, a golfer double hits a chip and doesn't know it so he doesn't call a penalty. He signs his scorecard. It's then revealed that on the slow motion replay it can be seen that he double hit it. The committee can then assess him a penalty instead of DQ'ing him for signing an incorrect scorecard. The player didn't know he double hit it. The second example is a golfer in a deep bunker barely grazes the wall of the bunker behind him on his backswing. He doesn't call a penalty because he doesn't know he hit the bunker. He signs an incorrect scorecard and then it's revealed through the slow motion replay that he hit the sand on his backswing. Again, the committee can assess him a penalty instead of DQ'ing him. Tiger's only argument was that he didn't know the rules and that is NEVER an excuse for not being properly penalized. The USGA rules are adamant about that. He purposely dropped 2 yards behind the original spot. He should of been a man of honor and told the rules committee that even though you didn't see it I dropped 2 yards behind the original spot. If that was before signing the scorecard he would have received a two stroke penalty and being DQ'd would have never entered into this. Once he clammed up and didn't say anything and then signed an incorrect scorecard he should have been DQ'd. I guess Tiger doesn't think the rules apply to him.

Tiger knows the rules of golf. Last night while being interviewed he admitted that he dropped two yards behind his original shot. Players are supposed to call penalties on themselves even if no one else sees it. It doesn't matter what the rules committee said after first reviewing the video, Tiger knew he broke the rule and signed an incorrect scorecard. If Tiger had been in really deep rough and touched the ball while addressing it, even if no one else saw it, he's supposed to call the penalty, right? He shouldn't let the competition committee review the video and if they say they couldn't see him touch it, and then Tiger goes by what the committee ruled, even though he knew he touched it, that's cheating. Frank Nobilo and the others defending him because of the excuse that the competition committee supposedly told him he did nothing wrong before signing his card are completely wrong. Tiger knew what he did and that's all that matters. Even if Tiger had a brain cramp when taking the drop and didn't realize it, he knew it when the committee first started questioning it and reviewing the video. If he would have taken the penalty right then and there before signing his scorecard there wouldn't be any controversy at all and a lot of people would have a ton of respect for him for doing what is right. Tiger had a chance to do something morally right, no matter how hard it is to make that decision, and he blew it. By the way, that's complete BS that the competition committee didn't see anything wrong when first reviewing the video. It's clear as hell.

I think too many people have misconstrued what the 10,000 hour rule means. It's more of an arbitrary number, or average number of hours that one needs to practice to reach your peak performance at sports, music, math or whatever your chosen field is. Some people reach their peak after 5000 hours and others may take 25,000 hours. Really it's just saying that it takes many, many hours of dedicated practice to achieve something. Besides, this 10,000 rule is just a small part of what it takes to become world class at something. No where in the book does it say that 10,000 hours of practice can make you a great athlete, musician or what ever. There's way more to it than that. Yet that's what everyone talks about as being the most important thing to succeed. It takes 1000's of hours of practice to turn the nerves that you are using to control whatever it is your body is doing, like in Dan's case the golf swing, into super conductors. With that much practice the myelin sheath that surrounds the nerves builds up thicker and thicker making the nerves a much faster conductor which allows your body to turn that into motion faster and with less thinking about it. That's an important part of the process to achieve peak performance but it's not really the most important part either. Maybe the most important part is having a supremely dedicated drive to be the best at something and not letting anything stop you from reaching your goal. No matter how many setbacks you have, no matter how many lulls there are where it seems you are not making progress, no matter how many people tell you that you won't achieve your goal, you have to remain fiercely dedicated. That's where, in my opinion, Dan falls short. Seems to me that he is doing this as an experiment, that he's enjoying the process and the fact that he's getting some fame out of it. He seems too relaxed and not driven enough in the videos I've seen of him practicing. Greg Norman is probably the best example of someone who was driven to be the best golfer in the world. After he came to that decision he worked and practiced as much as humanly possible and didn't let anything get in his way. He used to show up at the golf course while it was still dark and do his stretching in the parking lot. Then from sunup to sundown, he was playing and practicing. Then he would go to the gym and workout and then swim laps in the pool. Then it was time to go to sleep and get back up before daybreak and do it again. And again and again and again. I don't see that level of dedication in Dan's videos. Like I said, there are many different factors in becoming a world class performer at something, and putting in 1000's of hours of practice is just a part of the process. No where in the book does it say that 10,000 hours of practice will make you a world class performer, yet that seems to be the #1 thing that every one talks about and gets out of the book. I hope Dan can make it to the tour or have some kind of success but I don't think he will.

JMHO, most amateurs would benefit greatly from trying to hit the ball straight. And by straight, I mean very little side to side movement of the ball especially on their drives. Maybe a couple yards tops. Most amateurs hit weak fades. They should try and hit the ball straight. It's easier to learn that than to go from a fade to a draw. Once you can hit the ball reasonably straight you can then spend time trying to work the ball one way or the other. Getting back to the OP, he should go with what comes naturally to him, the straight shot. If you can hit 90% of your shots straight, like he wrote, there's no reason to change that unless he becomes a scratch golfer or a really good ball striker and wants to be able to work the ball in the wind one way or the other to counteract the wind and have the shot go straight which is something the pros do. Again, by straight I mean a shot that only deviates a yard or two one way or the other at the most. Golf manufacturers of clubs and balls all try to make their equipment easier to hit the ball straight. You can buy a golf ball like a pinnacle that doesn't spin as much and that helps amatuers hit it straight. There has been some balls made to counteract side spin and they do it so well they are not approved by the USGA for play. Club manufacturers make their clubs, especially their drivers, with a draw bias to help the masses hit the ball straighter. They also make a tour model of the same club with a 1° open face for the very good golfers who want to work the ball. But yeah, if that's your natural shot just go with it. It means you are doing a good job of squaring the clubface to the ball at impact. Why would anyone want to mess with that?

I say Harry Vardon even though it's hard to compare someone from so long ago and not having any video to watch of him. The equipment they used back then was so much harder to play with and be consistent. Also the rules made it so much harder to play when Harry was playing. He was able to hit the ball around 280 yards depending on conditions and if he let it all hang out. Even though that was an occasional drive, you really had to hit it pure to to hit it that far. That was the least of it though. They had no lift and clean rules back then. If the ball plugged anywhere you had to play it where it lay, even on the green. That meant carving the ball out of muddy lies. I remember reading about one instance in the US Open where he had to carve the ball out of a plugged lie on the green and then putt the ball with a chunk of mud on it. He had to actually take into account how the mud would affect the roll of the ball and he made the putt. If an opponents ball was in your way while putting you had to try and make the ball spin around it and make it curve to the hole, there was no marking the balls on the green. The bunkers back then were virtual waste lands with rocks, twigs, mud and whatever else happened to be laying in there. A lot of the time they were trying to just get the ball out of the bunker any way they could much less get it near the hole. The courses were in no where near the pristine condition the courses are now a days. And they had to be consistent for 36 holes a day, not just 18 like they play now. That's a lot harder to strike the ball on the sweet spot over and over. I don't think a lot of people realize how different the game was back then because of the equipment and the rules. I would also add Seve Ballesteros as one of the great ball strikers of all time. He could make any kind of shot with any kind of club and had the imagination to make shots no one else could even think of.

Iacas is right as to you can have two different golfers swinging the same way and one will feel his arms are passive and the other feeling they're dominant. I remember reading an article a while back about the top 50 golfers of all time and it included some thoughts on their swings. It was a bunch of contradictions. I think it was Sam Snead who said the swing is made with the left side of the body and then Ben Hogan says he wishes he had 3 right arms or hands. I'm reading a book, "The Science of Golf" and it breaks down the swing as far as supplying power. The wrists provide 10%, the arms and wrists 20%, and the arms, wrists and upper body 40% with the remaining 60% coming from the lower body. It even quotes Jack Nicklaus as saying you hit the ball with the lower body. I would say that's correct. But then again, you have a small guy like Bob Toski who could hit 250 yard drives from his knees in which he's not using his lower body at all. Golf is so confusing and humbling. The arms are definitely active in the swing, no matter that some people might "feel" otherwise. The most important thing is having your different parts of the body firing in the correct order, starting from the bottom up. If someone is thinking to make his arms more active he might start down with his arms too soon. firing out of sequence, and that's a recipe for disaster. The feeling that I get is the lower body starts the downswing, the arms "feel" limp, the first 4-6 inches my arms drop from gravity and then the muscles take over more and more as you feel like you're pulling down on a rope.

I think the best argument for banning the anchored putting method is in competition, at the pro level or the club championship or what ever, when someone is leading or near the lead, and coming to the last couple of holes, a lot of golfers start shaking like jello, and anchoring the putter is a distinct advantage in keeping the putter steady. Other than that, I don't think it matters much. I also agree that golf has bigger issues, like the ball and other equipment. When equipment dictates that golf courses being made have to be dramatically longer, whether new or redesigning a course, that's crossing the line as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a fan of the hit it and go find it type of golf being played now.

They should have different rules are far as equipment goes. For that matter, I think some equipment should be banned entirely but too many amateurs rely on it already and it would be hard to change. Long putters and hybrids should not be allowed for the pros. It takes too much away from the game. Putting, the yips, is something that has plagued golfers as long as golf has been played. When golfers get older they can suffer from it. Long putters solve that problem. Equipment alone shouldn't make you a better golfer. You shouldn't be able to buy a better game. Hybrids take away one of the things that separated great golfers from the rest. Being able to hit your long irons. Tournaments have been won and lost because of this. It takes extra dedication and practice to hit long irons. Hybrids eliminate that. That's two things I would like to see change. It wouldn't matter to me if this was changed just for the pros or all golfers, but I don't think the equipment manufacturers would let that happen. In fact, I think that's the only reason they are allowed in the pro's. A lot of amateurs wouldn't play that equipment if it wasn't allowed in the pros. The only piece of equipment that changed the game for a long, long time was the sand wedge. Now in the last 20-25 years you have metal woods, long putters, hybrids, 460 cc drivers, exotic, tuned shafts, balls that fly farther and it's all in the name of money. Way too much change too fast. The game is easier for the pros because of it.

I think it should be an entertaining last show. Marcella looks to be the better golfer but Selanee is a good athlete with a great drive to win. I was impressed with the way she beat Glorianna so easily on the last show. She hit some clutch shots and made her putts. Two birdies over 5 holes was good playing. The better golfer doesn't always win. It doesn't matter much to me but if I had to bet I would bet on Selanee.

That doesn't sound right to me, hitting long and medium irons from behind the center of your stance. I play my short irons from the middle of my stance. Mid irons, 1 1/2 inches forward from the middle. Long irons, 3 inches forward from the middle. Playing the longer clubs forward accommodates the longer length of the clubs.

Rickie Fowler -11 Charl Schwartzel -10 Fredrik jacobsen -8

I think golf was harder 20+ years ago. And Els is right in saying that " I look around now and see guys winning, guys who could never have done so 20 years ago." He's not saying anything about guys from 20+ years ago not being able to win as much today, he's saying some players that win now couldn't have done it 20+ years ago. The inverse might be true, but he's not saying that. Can you imagine Bubba Watson jumping out of his shoes while swinging an old driver, whether persimmon or the first metal drivers. He get's wild now and he would be a disaster playing with older equipment unless he changed his swing. Equipment has changed the game too much too fast. Hybrids, belly putters, big head drivers, etc. have made the game easier for golfers now a days. They've lengthened courses and changed things like adding more bunkers or whatever, but that only negates the equipment a little bit. Maybe regular golfers should be able to use the newer equipment but not the pros. But if that happened there wouldn't be as many sales of new equipment. A lot of golfers like playing with the same stuff the pros use. I disagree completely with anyone who says that modern athletes are better than past generations of athletes. Especially in golf. There's more good pros but that's primarily because there's a lot more people in the world now. The top ten to fifteen golfers from past generations would still rank in the top 30 or so of golfers playing now. Golfers from the past could hit the ball every bit as far as golfers now. Nicklaus and Palmer could drive it over 300 yards. Sam Snead and Hogan too. You can go back to Harry Vardon who could hit his longest drives 280 yards or his buddy Ted Ray who could hit it over 300 yards with hickory shafted clubs and the inferior balls they used back then. But they had to play a game of control with the ball so they didn't let it all out that often. And they were much better at shaping shots than modern golfers. I thought sports like football and boxing were better back in the 1980's. Lineman were smaller than now, in the 270-280 lb. range, but they used a lot more athletic moves than the big guys do now. Heavyweight boxers back then were more around 210-220 lbs. and they used to dance, bob, weave and move around a lot compared to the boxers now. I think it was more entertaining. Maybe it's just what you grow up with. Steroids ruined baseball in the 90's with all of the home runs that were hit. Now it's more back to normal compared to the 1980's and before. Baseballs equipment hasn't changed except for the bigger gloves they use now. Baseball stayed more true to the old days with the wooden bats and balls they use now as compared to the way golf has exploded out of control with the equipment that's come out the past 15 years or so.

In my opinion, there wouldn't be a penalty to the player hitting the ball, nor the person attending the flagstick. It's already explained and clear the person hitting the ball wouldn't incur a penalty. And rule 17-2 says" if someone attends the flagstick without the players authority or prior knowledge". In this case, the player had prior knowledge. She saw her partner standing close to the flagstick, within an arms length. Anyone standing within an arms length of the flagstick is said to be attending it, no matter anything else. The person would have only incurred the penalty if they had walked away more than an arms length of the flagstick, and then hurried back to it and pulled it while or after the stroke was being played and the ball was still moving and might be influenced by it.

Hot and humid weather actually increases distance on the golf ball. Humid air is actually less dense because of more and lighter hydrogen molecules in the air. There's also an effect of heat on the ball because of the earth absorbing and then releasing the heat, which goes up. Same thing in baseball. More home runs in hot humid weather.

The Supreme Court got it right with their ruling in the PGA Tour Inc. v. Casey Martin. I've never seen so many arguments, most of them straw man arguments, that have nothing to do with the PGA taking Casey Martin to court. For one thing, Casey Martin can't walk 18 holes of golf. It's not like someone else wrote, that walking 18 holes would be a detriment to his game. He can't walk that far, period. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that golf courses are places of public accommodation. They are specifically mentioned as such in the ADA. Football fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, hockey rinks, etc. are not places of public accommodation. You can't go to Soldier Field and pay a fee and play football there with your friends. You can't go to Fenway Park, pay a fee and play baseball there. You can't go to the Staples Center, pay a fee and play basketball there. The PGA leases golf courses for a week to hold their tournaments there. Otherwise, you can pay a greens fee or join a private course and play there. The only way the PGA could get around that is if they bought and or built all of their own courses to hold their tournaments on, and the course is closed to the public the rest of the year. That's not going to happen. Because a golf course is a place of public accommodation, it's covered by the ADA. The Supreme Court also correctly ruled that walking and fatigue from it are not a significant part of the game. The PGA didn't prove to the court that making an accommodation for Martin would fundamentally alter the game itself and the tournaments. It also stated that concerning fatigue, Martin with his disability is more fatigued than any of the healthy golfers are. Golfers and ex players who have played with Martin, even the ones who are against him using a cart, admit that Martin is extremely fatigued just from walking from the cart to his ball. Martin has no advantage from using a cart over the healthy golfers. He's probably more fatigued after 3-4 holes than any golfer is after 18. The argument that he has any kind of advantage by using a cart doesn't fly. He's at a disadvantage in every physical part of the game. The PGA and USGA made golf to where fatigue isn't part of the game. Caddies take fatigue out of the game. The USGA has no rules banning carts or assisted devices for disabled golfers. That's all the cart is to Martin, an assisted device. I'm glad someone brought up Ken Venturi when he was delirious at the US Open because of the heat. What did the PGA do after that? They made changes to where they only played 18 holes per day instead of 36. They didn't want their golfers fatigued like Venturi was. They want them to be able to play their best without fatigue entering the equation. They also wouldn't allow carts at qualifiers or the first two stages of the Q-School if fatigue was a significant part of the game. They also wouldn't allow the use of carts in the limited use they have in some tournaments if they wanted fatigue to be a significant part of the game. Besides Venturi, someone brought up Tom Watson at the 2009 Open at Jason Dufner at the Colonial. That's it? That's all the examples you can bring up over the past 50 years? Tom Watson lost The Open for the same reason he had only won 3 PGA events after 1984, his putting. He missed some short putts and made a bad attempt to sink an 8-footer on the 18th hole that would have won it for him. He said his "legs didn't work" on the 3rd playoff hole, after Cink "already had it in hand". Watson was tired, but that was because of his age, and age doesn't make you disabled. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling on Martin. The ruling is strictly about disabled people. Jason Dufner never said his legs gave out at the Colonial. That was funnyman David Feherty who brought it up. He said "His brain is now on a stick. He's carrying it around. Dufner's legs and concentration must be gone, after a month that went, in order, win-wedding-tie 68 (TPC)-win-second. That's two wins, a runner-up and a night spent doing "The Electric Slide" with your best pals and new bride – all in a month. That'll wear anybody out, even a flat-liner like Dufner." I disagree with you that Dufners legs really gave out. There's no reason for a healthy golfer to get so fatigued that he can't make a good swing anymore. That goes for amateurs too. If you do, you must be in some pathetic shape. If a chain smoking, fat alcoholic like John Daly can walk 18 holes with no problems, fatigue is not a part of the game. If Colt Knost can walk 18 with no problem the same holds true. Someone wrote that Ben Hogan quit golfing because his injured legs couldn't handle it anymore. That's not true either. He was 59 when he retired from the PGA. How long do you think he was going to play? Allowing Casey Martin to use a cart doesn't affect the game itself at all. All of the other comments about playing at night to accommodate blind golfers, letting golfers play a 2000 yard course, robots throwing footballs for armless QB's, baseball players using carts to run the bases, reverse discrimination, level playing fields, etc. are so out there and don't pertain to the Supreme Court ruling. Running bases and throwing footballs are significant parts of the game. Night golf significantly changes the game, just like making a bigger hole would. There is no reverse discrimination. Anyone that is disabled and can't walk 18 holes may use a cart. If you can walk 18, there's no reason to use a cart. And there's nothing in the ruling saying there has to be a level playing field. It's making an accommodation to a disabled person in a part of the game that's not significant.

I hate to drag this on, but I'd like to make a few comments on Mickelson withdrawing. Golf, far more than any other sport, depends on mental acuity more than anything else. Mental fatigue is a valid reason for withdrawing. There's no reason to go out there for one more round if you're mentally exhausted. It serves no purpose to Phil, and as most golfers know, it can make things worse by ingraining bad parts of the swing. I don't see why a fan would want to see Phil playing another bad round like the first one anyway and think that's entertaining. And that's what golf and sports are for, entertainment for the fans. Mickelson has been through some life altering occurrences the past couple of years, from his wife and Mother fighting cancer to being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Sometimes things have a way of catching up to you all of a sudden. They were celebrating Amy's birthday, a milestone birthday where realize your life is generally half over, and also, I bet the cancer coming back is always somewhere in the back of their minds too and may have affected their vacation. Phil is also at that age where a lot of men suffer burnout in their careers, whether a superstar athlete or a regular Joe. Jack Nicklaus suffered burnout for quite a while when he was 39-40 years old, where he said he had no motivation to play and if playing, no motivation to win. Look how Barry Sanders retired in his prime, Michael Jordan quitting the NBA for nearly two years or Robert Duran and his "No mas" fight against Sugar Ray Leonard, after Duran had fought nearly 80 times in his career. There are a lot more examples of athletes suffering different degrees of burnout or "mental fatigue". With Phil, I guess you can say it's "minor burnout". And I bet celebrating Amy's 40th birthday drained a lot of emotion out in both of them. I think Phil handled it with class. He finished the round and honestly admitted why he was withdrawing instead of some bs injury excuse. And yes, Phil does deserve the benefit of the doubt on this one because of the way he has handled himself in public and private throughout his career. I think any sport would be even more enjoyable to the fans if more athletes conducted themselves like Phil has, especially the way he's always smiling to the fans ready to chat a little and sign autographs. I think the fans taking Phil to task for this are being unfair and selfish. It's like they feel Phil has a duty to perform for them no matter what may be going through his mind right now.