Wisguy

I'm not so sure about that. I saw him last week on Feherty and he looked pretty uncomfortable in front of a camera, even at his own house.

Thanks Motown, I really appreciate the advice. Tullymore and St. Ives look gorgeous. Out of my usual price range, but if I can get away for an afternoon, I can probably swing their twilight rate.

I'll be taking a vacation this season in Michigan, a bit north and west of the center of the state, in-between Big Rapids and Clare. Any recommendations on nearby golf courses? A Google search pulled up some of the following courses that are nearby: - The Pines at Lake Isabella (Weidman, MI) - Birch Valley Golf Course (Sears, MI) - Spring Valley Golf Course (Hersey, MI) - Meceola Country Club (Big Rapids, MI) - Eagle Glen (Farwell, MI) - looks like a links course from the satellite image - is that right? - Falcon Head Golf Course (Big Rapids) - Katke Golf Club @ Ferris State Univ. (Big Rapids) - Firefly Golf Links (Clare, MI) - Snow Snake Ski & Golf (Harrison, MI) Anyone have any recommendations out of that list? I don't want to go too far afield, so I'm not looking to play one of the better known northern resort courses. Looks like Katke might be pretty interesting - they offer free golf to kids if I bring my daughter to play their scaled-down course from the family tees. Thanks

Guys, that course looks nice, the price is reasonable, but I've got a vacation the last week of August and as it rolls closer, without some major projects at my house being completed yet (amazing how crappy a summertime cold can make you feel and how badly it can interfere with plans), I don't see how I can squeeze a full 9-10 hour golf outing into my schedule this month; Brighton Dale would be about a 4-hour round trip for me. So I think I'm going to have to back out of the planned outing on the 17th. If we want to try for another outing in mid-late September, I could do that.

Shorty, you're still ticked off at me for calling you out for bullying a potential 12 year-old (or maybe an adult troll, but you didn't know that). Tell me how I'm lacking in knowledge or understanding. What exactly is it that you are contending that I do not know or understand? As usual, you make bold statements but don't back them up with reference to any examples. I genuinely don't like how links courses look, even if they're lush and green, and I really don't like brown, dead-looking vegetation, in a garden, along the roadside, or at a golf course. And I understand that the British courses get little watering and they try to preserve that old time look for the sake of tradition. And I also have explained previously, I understand the whole different shotmaking thing, especially if there is wind and like any major, I understand that the British Open courses are challenging and hard and not supposed to be set up for low scoring. I get all of that. None of that matters to me when I look at a British links course - I see brown, dried-out fairways and greens, few physical features that set the course off to my eye in an aesthetically pleasing fashion. They do not look like a course I'd like to play. I like trees and water on a course, even if they eat my sliced balls. And yes, as a fairly avid gardener, I do like to see some flowers on the course - if you don't like that, sue me. As I explained above, most golfers have a different set of standards for their venerable "The Open." I don't - golf courses are golf courses to me, some much better than others, but I personally don't care about the history or " Hallowed Tradition" of a course. So it's not that I'm ignorant of anything - my priorities and preferences are simply different than those of most golfers. But maybe in your vaunted wisdom, you can educate me on all of the things about British Open courses that I don't know. Please - let's hear a list of them.

Let me put this into perspective that I hope everyone can understand. Let's say there's a new course in your state, one that billed itself as a world-class course and charged a premium over typical greens fees for the area and we discovered it featured the following conditions relative even to average area courses: underwatered, dried-out fairways that are more brown in color than green and that produce a tuft of dust after every shot, plus greens that are 20, 30, even 50% brown in color, with some bare patches**. Unless the course billed itself as the most authentic Scottish links-style course outside of Scotland, probably nearly person on this board would complain about the course conditions, if not to the pro shop, then at least to his playing partners or in an on-line comment or review. No one had any problems acknowledging that two months ago at the Wells Fargo, the greens at Quail Hollow were in poor shape, yet no one seems to think the same for the relatively similar appearing greens at Muirfield this week. For me, bad or dried-out conditions are bad or dried-out conditions, regardless of context and location. I am very interested in many aspects of world history, and some sports history too, but for whatever reason, I care not a whit for ancient golf history, so the context of preserving the original game as it was played one or more centuries ago is meaningless to me . However, for some, they are so enamored with the British Open and the original history of the game that they will adopt a double standard for course conditions, one for their typical courses in their home area, one for the British links courses. So relative to typical conditions for the British Open, this year's Muirfield may be perfectly within the normal standards for a British Open. If you want to have double standards on golf course conditions, fine. That's your prerogative, no one is hurt by it like there may be with double standards on honesty, fidelity, drug use, violence, etc.... So we've established that there can be two sets of standards for course aesthetics and conditions and, as I acknowledged in my initial post, I recognize I am in the minority for not appreciating the double standard. I started this post to satisfy my curiosity about how few or many people might agree with me, plus see if there was some extra information out there that would give me a better understanding and explanation for the love of the British links courses that has so far escaped me. As suspected, a few people have similar opinions to mine, but I'm definitely in the minority. And no one has convinced me that there's more to the appeal of these links courses than I originally thought. Erik, at no point in this thread have I been deficient of knowledge of any aspect of this topic other than what I have indicated already, the lack of experience playing on one of these Scottish links courses. However, that's no different than when you sit down in April and watch the Masters, since (I'm guessing) you haven't played Augusta and are ignorant of exactly what that course would be like to play. That lack of familiarity does not prevent you from forming an opinion liking or disliking what you see on TV from Augusta National, so why should you feel it is different for someone who has watched British Opens on TV only and doesn't care for those courses? You keep bandying about this "ignorance" term when all you really mean is that you are disagreeing strongly with my subjective opinion on the aesthetics and conditions of the typical British Open course. You have double standards on course conditions and I don't. That doesn't make me ignorant and it doesn't make either of us right or wrong, contrary to what you almost keep saying. We differ in opinion - the appropriate response is to accept that, not make veiled threats about locking the thread or worse. I don't troll on this or any other website and I don't appreciate your implication that I'm headed in that direction merely because we have different tastes in golf courses. To address Fourputt's point about decreased irrigation and costs, that may be true to a point, but I don't think it's a trend we'll see in the immediate future in the US unless there's another economic downturn. Playing the Old Course (per Ask.com) is 130 pounds which is around $200US, so it's clearly a lot cheaper than Pebble Beach for tops-of-the-bucket-list courses. But it's also a lot more expensive than any course I would typically play - it's over double the cost of several very well-maintained resort courses within an hour or two of my house (however, based on market demand and the year-long waiting list, it's clearly not an unreasonable charge for the world's most famous course). The problem is that very few businesses ever pass savings on to customers directly, so a hypothetical 40% savings on costs to a typical course we might play if they adopted a minimal watering policy would likely not get passed on as a 40% reduction in greens fees and unless it was a wet season with all courses in good shape, a lot of golfers would probably pay maybe $10 more to play a course that they feel is in significantly better shape, everything else being relatively equal. Geauxforbroke - I'll confess that I genuinely AM ignorant of the fine details of soccer. And I'd rather watch really bad golfers (i.e. ones even worse than myself) play on the brownest, most dried out links course in the world than watch the most skilled professional adults play soccer, which I find excruciating to watch for many, many reasons. But I'll leave that for another discussion. ----------------------- ** Maybe you didn't see the full green I was looking at this morning. Or maybe there was a typo on the screen and ESPN showed two different greens at different times that were labeled the 2nd hole. But absolutely, positively, there was a large bare patch - not just brown grass, a bare patch about the size of a typical kitchen table - on the green I saw labeled as the 2nd green and it would have been in the front left of the pin as one walks up the fairway toward the green. There was at least one other bare patch on that green, too. I saw this for two separate groups they showed on this green (I think Snedeker might have been in one of them) and I rewound it several times to double check.

Really?? I just tell a newbie that we treat other members of this site civily, and the site's founder calls me stupid or ignorant? Seriously? That sort of comment wouldn't be surprising for someone like Shorty who puts every last drop of effort into his attempts at being clever and does not understand the distinction between witty and snide. You need to take a step back and understand that I'm talking about some golf courses, not your wife's looks or her faithfulness. Having a difference of opinion on this subject shouldn't ruffle as many feathers as my comments seem to be doing with some of you British Open fans. And you're plain wrong, in any event - a green that is partially brown is either not healthy and/or well-maintained, or is deliberately maintained in that fashion as some sort of anachronistic affectation. Some varieties of tall grass that grow in the rough may get brownish at maturity, but the grass that is grown on greens should be green if healthy and watered properly. Period. The part of the course where the hole is located is not called a "brown," it's called a "green." Most of the greens are predominantly green in color, so if some of it is green, it should all be green. From what this layperson can see, it appears that they shaved some of these greens so tight that they damaged the grass; that would be consistent with the multiple player complaints about the extreme speed of the greens. This morning, there are large bare dirt patches - not brown grass, but bare DIRT patches - on the 2nd green. Anyone trying to contend that is an adequately maintained green is so biased that he doesn't care about being honest. They also showed a bit of Ernie Els' winning putt from the 2002 championship. The green back then wasn't the mottley combination of green and earthtones that we're seeing this week, it was a solid green. So unless some Muirfield or R&A; official said "Let's get rid of this healthy looking turf and put in some type of grass that looks sickly," the grass on the greens is capable of looking like how a green should look, but those in charge of course conditions failed to bring the greens up to that condition this year. The purists complain about the deliberately over-maintained American course - well aren't the Scottish links courses just as deliberately under-maintained? If anything, the latter sorts of course maintenance is more of a phony affectation, in the 21st century, than the former. Finally, as to your comments about the meaning of ignorance and my ignorance of the joys of playing a Scottish links course, I disagree. The comments here talking about ignorance are not merely suggesting a lack of knowledge, familiarity or experience, but are intending, at least partially, as critical attacks against my judgment and sensibility. Last time I checked personal familiarity with a sport is hardly a prerequisite for the sport to be considered worthy of merit - my 70 year-old mother-in-law, who knows the names of more Packers players than I do, would certainly disagree. Since I've already stated that I do not enjoy playing links courses here in the U.S., why on earth would that change on the much uglier, browner and more difficult Scottish courses? Do I have the skill, imagination, and confidence to play a Scottish links course "properly?" I have no idea, quite possibly I don't. But I rarely play well on courses that I find ugly or poorly maintained, so I think it would be extremely unlikely that playing any of those courses will change my view of them.

That's a good one - for over a decade I ate a lot more frequently at restaurants featuring food from countries most Americans couldn't find on a world map than fast food restaurants. I see, if someone has a different viewpoint than you do, one that he expressly admits is on a highly subjective topic, then in your world you find it acceptable to put down the person or label him as "ignorant." We generally try to be a bit more civil here, even when we disagree significantly with someone else. You will note that I said I find links courses boring, rather than belittle those who do like them. So you are a fan of the Scottiish courses. Good for you. At the risk of being a hypocrite for sounding like Shambles, you remind me of a soccer fan who just watched a triple overtime soccer match that resulted in a "nil-nil" tie who describes that hours-long non-event fest as "Brilliant!!!" and who immediately labels anyone who disagrees as "ignorant of the game," which in my experience is what most soccer fans do when defending their sport. Claiming that knowledge of the Scottish courses is necessary to know and appreciate the game is not true - it may enhance your particular love of the sport, but that doesn't mean that it is necessary for everyone. As for your assumption that I cannot shape my shots, that would be at least partially incorrect. I have a decent idea of how to go about hitting high and low shots and even curviing them, but between my lack of innate skills and my lack of time to practice much, I am definitely not proficient at those shots. Which brings up the catch-22 situation that I'm damned if I do according to some internet opinionators if I do not try difficult shots, and I'm damned if I don't by others for not playing the safe, "smart shot" that I can more easily accomplish. Not to mention that I never contended I was anything other than a high handicap golfer nor is it necessary to be a low handicapper to have an opinion on whether or not one likes a particular kind of golf course. We're getting a lot of interesting opinions on this sport here lately. According to several people, the very slightest deviation from any of the rules of golf, no matter how significant or trivial, means the golfer is not even playing the game of golf. And if one fails to worship the old Scottish courses and do everything just as Metrybill does, they're not even "real golfers." What's next, if I say that Steve Stricker is one of my favorite golfers, is someone going to tell me I'm wrong?

FYI out of the top 74 golfers in the world, only Steve Stricker was not playing at Muirfield today. He and his wife had decided months ago to celebrate their 20th anniversary at home instead of making the trek across the pond. How's that for family values? (actually, I have this little suspicion, based on nothing more rational than the fact that we're both from Wisconsin, that Stricker doesn't care for the British courses either).

Family values? You mean like how he probably gambles more every year than most of us make? As for your jealousy of Phil's success argument, wouldn't that apply even more to Tiger than to Phil? Strange, I don't think Tiger is particularly unpopular with his peers on tour.

These "You can't judge it until you play it" comments to me are like saying "You can't judge Rosanne Barr until you've been with her." Yes, there may be some positives, but the negatives substantially outweigh them for me. I like nature to look like nature and golf courses to look like golf courses. As for that "natural" look, well, I guess that would apply about equally to that one guy on the block who only mows his lawn every two weeks instead of weekly like the rest of us, or that "free spirited" chick who doesn't shave her legs or armpits or use deodorant. You can call it "traditionalist," I call it not trying very hard. Dead or dormant, brown grass on a golf course, particularly on the more manicured portions of the couse (fairways and greens) means poorly maintained to me. Part of why I think some Americans may like the British Open courses so much is that most of them are in Scotland and a lot of Americans have this fantasized view of Scotland as being this incredible, spectacular place. My family lived in the UK twice, I've visited nearly every county on the English isle except Cornwall, and I think that Scotland is by far the least picturesque part of the island. I spent many hours looking out car windows throughought England and especially Wales at beautiful countryside. On our several trips to Scotland I'd glance up at a lot of brown hillsides once and a while, see nothing of interest, and go back to reading a sci-fi novel. Now I'm not trying to say that there's nothing to see in Scotland or no good views, but for every attractive scene or interesting castle in Scotland, there are a dozen south of the border that top the Scottish ones. I just don't like links -style courses because they contain very little that strikes my eye as interesting - yes, personal aesthetics are very subjective. The closest course to my house is half a links course and those are the most boring holes of golf for many a mile around to me, even though they are not unchallenging. Last fall, the week after I played that local partially links course, I went to a woodlands course that was a lot harder and I loved it. If Herb Kohler invited me to a day of golf and I got to choose which of his courses we'd play, it would be Blackwolf Run, not the more expensive Whistling Straits (and the Straits course looks a heck of a lot more interesting to me than any of the British Open courses I've seen on TV). Changing topics slightly, anyone else notice the revered, ever-so-passionate British golf fans, or lack thereof for the latter part of the day? For some of the early afternoon starting groups the grandstands around the 18th green were at least 1/3 empty. By the last few groups, there were only a few dozen fans in the stands. Not very impressive. There were a whole lot more fans in the stands until the very end of the day at the PGA practice round I saw.

I just watched a few hours of the British Open and my opinion on British Open courses has been the same for the two decades I've been watching golf on TV: they are butt-ugly, boring, in bad shape, and have a very common gimmick to make them more challenging - the impossibly-deep-and-steep-sided pot bunkers. OK, I know this is sacrilegious to many people, but I think most/all of the British Open courses I've seen look like goat tracks. As Sam Snead once said upon viewing the Old Course at St. Andrews, "It looks like there once used to be a golf course there." I genuinely think there is an Emperor's New Robe aspect to how many golf fans view the British Open courses. I know I'll hear the following explanations/excuses: - "THE TRADITION!!!" - big deal. Famous players have played many courses and hit many famous shots. - "The Challenge!" - again, so what? Plenty of great, beautiful courses are challenging without being boring and nearly featureless - "They require golfers to make different types of shots and think outside of the box!" In two hours today, I saw this only one hole, the par-5 17th, where everyone played for a lot of roll onto the green. Most of the time, this isn't too appreciable to television audiences. Every fairway today was at best 50-60% green, the rest dull, dead brown. Ditto with the greens - on some holes it was next to impossible to see where the green started and the fairway or rough ended until a close-up shot. There are no trees on the courses, no features other than a fairway that sometimes curves a bit or a few mounds or bunkers, both the same dead tan color. One of the things I like about golf is the aesthetics of a pretty golf course. A British Open course to me is the equivalent of going to an art museum where all the paintings feature nothing more than brown or grey paint thrown from a dozen feet away onto a beige canvas. Every shot from the fairway today featured a puff or cloud of dust flying up from the usually brown, dead grass. Hell, if you went to a course in your state that was in the top 20% price-wise and had fairways and greens so dried out and dead-looking, you'd complain. I watched a player have to hit out of a bunker not backwards (he couldn't even do that with a near-vertical wall blocking his ball) but sideways into deep rough two feet deep as his only shot. I watched shot after shot roll down the fairway and funnel into the bunkers. I even watched Tiger hit what appeared to be a nice lag put only to see it end up over a dozen feet off the green. Yes, they're challenging holes, but made so by gimmicks. Shots hitting a fairway (i.e. otherwise known as "good shots") shouldn't be penalized by funneling them into bunkers. I've got no problem with fairway bunkers in general, but don't force what should be good shots into them. Anyone else feel the same way or am I basically doing the equivalent to trying to claim that Arnie was an unpopular golfer who was unimportant to the sport?

Sorry about that post above - my wireless keyboard went on the fritz and by the time I plugged in another keyboard, my 10 minutes to edit had elapsed. The thread should have read: This has been covered in other threads but if he's such a nice guy, why does Phancy Phil have no friends on tour? Why is his nickname FIGJAM (!&*(Y*(& I'm Good - Just Ask Me)? Now Vijay Singh - he's a genuine ass. I followed his group in a practice round at the 2004 PGA and he angrily refused to sign autographs and got pissed at Jesper Parnevik taking time to sign autographs or chat briefly with fans.

This has been covered in other threassadlkndlkdmnm +*+*-**

I predict that it will help him every bit as much as victory has assisted past Scottish Open Champions in conquering the British Open the next week - we all know how many times there's been a back-to-back winner... well, uhhmmm... that number would be zero. So historically, Phancy Phil just guaranteed a lack of success. I caught the last few holes and the playoff on Sunday and agreed that the coverage seemed dull, not just from the low light toward the end of the day.

The 3rd is unlikely, the 17th is possible, the 24th won't work for me. September weekends work better for me for something that likely will take up th entire day - we've got too much going on this summer, which is now half over.

For years I was playing with an old Ram 55* wedge from the days when Tom Watson still played Ram clubs. It seemed to do a decent job, but I bought Stan Utley's The Art of Scoring book and Utley recommended a 58* wedge instead of a standard 55 or 56* SW. I got lucky on an used Vokey Spin Milled 58* wedge for cheap on eBay (I think I got it for $33 shipped) . I'm not sure if it's the stiff shaft on the new club compared to the R shaft on my old wedge, maybe its shaft is a bit longer, or maybe it's just a better quality club, but I'm hitting it about the same 85-90 yards as I hit my old 55* wedge (should have been 10 yds shorter, with the extra loft), plus it's got a higher ball flight, and much better feel - I'm pitching and chipping closer and sculling fewer shots with it. It performs about the same out of the sand as my old wedge. So far, I'm extremely happy with the club and it has not only completely replaced my 55* wedge, but given me more options than that club ever had.

The anchored putter issue is irrelevant for me since I use a standard putter and I don't see golfers using anchored putters statistically dominating the PGA putting stats or making Crenshaw's putting seem like an amateur at a miniature golf course. I don't think I'd ever buy a 600cc driver or an iron/wedge made with the equivalent of a coarse wood file face on it in lieu of conforming grooves, but I have no plans whatsoever to retire my clubs with non-conforming grooves on them whenever the rule goes in effect on the grooves, unless the USGA plans to subsidize 100% the cost of a new set of irons for me. I don't play in tournaments and see no point to following this rule, which was intended to lower scoring among the most highly competitive golfers out there who may actually have been receiving some relatively modest benefit from the square grooves. The rule has no logical application to the 90+ % of golfers who aren't breaking 90 and I see no reason to follow it. I'm sure some ruleshounds will spout the old cliché about golf without following the rules 100% isn't golf, but if what I'm doing now is perfectly legal and within the rules, why should a rule change that doesn't apply to golfers of my skills and abilities suddenly make me have to dump hundreds of dollars on new equipment in a few years? I've got no problem with manufacturers selling non-conforming equipment, even stuff that doesn't conform to the present rules, provided it is clearly labeled as "NC" engraved on the back or bottom of the club or some other permanent means of identification. As for TM's doom and gloom announcements and predictions, there doesn't seem to be much validity to that.

I was visiting in northern Ohio last week and played a round with my uncle. Using golflink.com, which seems to be affiliated with golfnow.com, I was able to get greens fees for $12 for 18 holes including cart ($31 out the door with taxes and fees for two players). It was a very average course, with only a few noteworthy holes, but with all the rain this season, it was in nice shape. Before I unsubscribed, I received several daily e-mails from golfnow.com for the Toledo area and saw some deals that were as low as $6, $8, or $10 a round including cart; I'm not familiar with those courses and didn't bother to look up whether they were 9 or 18 hole courses, but it seems that at least in that area, there is some very cheap golf available. Cheapest I've paid in Wis. this year was $22 with cart via an isolated super-cheapie golfnow.com deal that was $54 at full price, although I've had some $13.50 ($15 w/tax and fees) rounds last year walking via a local promotional company similar to Groupon. How cheap is the cheapest round you've played lately? Is NW Ohio the cheapest place in the country to play or does it get even less expensive elsewhere?

This is not supported by the cited article - if anything, it suggests that the accommodation offered was a drop-off service. It should be obvious to anyone that for a college coach at a tournament for scouting and recruiting purposes, a drop-off service would not be adequate to see more than a few shots and would be insufficient to assess the golfers at the tournament. This seems the most likely scenario and if it is indeed the case, then someone from the USGA was probably targeting Martin - there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by being a rules gunner in that circumstance, a tournament that could have no more than moderate attendance where a cart would not cause issues with paths and spectator flow or viewing. Make no mistake about it, many golfers got very upset with Martin and the US Supreme Court decision stating that walking was not an integral part of the game and still have negative feelings toward him; ironically, I bet a lot of those people typically ride a cart when they play.

Well, since we've now got this group, I think I'll start it off with a deal post for an excellent deal for one of the state's top-ranked courses, the Castle Course at Northern Bay Resort, the course north of the Dells with the following replica holes: -Augusta National 16th - Oakland Hills 5th -Firestone Hole 16th -TPC Sawgrass 17th -Augusta National 13th -Oakmont 3rd -Bay Hill 18th Here's the course website: http://www.northernbayresort.com/golf/the-castle-course-wisconsin-dells-area-golf This deal is through Get My Perks, which is like Groupon or Living Social (no cost to join, I've got no affiliation with the company except as a repeat customer), and I've bought discounted greens fees from them a bunch of times over the past several years for Tumbledown Trails in Middleton, Baraboo CC, and Deer Valley in Barneveld. I've never had a problem with the greens fees being honored and unlike the deals on golfnow.com where you're locked in to a specific tee time, you can pick and change the date and time (with some limitations). The original deal is 50% off the normal $90 greens fees (includes cart w/GPS and range balls), but it's good only Mondays through Thursdays (all day) and Sundays after 12pm, with tee time made in advance - it's not valid on Fridays, Saturdays, or holidays. I discovered a promotional code good for an additional 30% off: frugal30 so I paid only $31.50 including taxes and fees. Don't know how long that code will work, though, but it worked yesterday. If you go for this deal and click through the following link, I'll get an extra $10 referral credit, too: http://www.getmyperks.com/?ref=270510b19cbc4469b04e66a4e511e7eb or if you don't feel like it or if such self-serving links are not allowed here, you can just go to www.getmyperks.com Hope that helps start this group off on a good note. I've not yet played this course but I've heard that it's very pretty, a lot of fun to play, and a terrific course.

My wife joined a women's running group a few years back that generally meets for early morning runs both Saturdays and Sundays, which really puts a damper on being able to golf or play tennis with some friends who have a standing 9am Saturday tennis session; this is especially true when the girls spend two hours grabbing coffee and breakfast after (or sometimes, I suspect, in lieu of) a run. By the way, I'm in the Madison area.

Agreed. I can't remember the last time I skipped that many paragraphs in an article on a topic of interest to me. I thought it was an article about David Duval, not the author's rants on all the silliness of televised golf and golf announcers/commentators. Worthless article. I'm not sure why it was written in July of 2013 about the 2009 US Open. Smug? More like emotionless. But how many tour golfers are chipper and cheery? If being non-smilely while doing their jobs on the course was a legitimate reason for disliking a player, more than half the pro golfers out there would have no fans at all. A big part of the reason why most people who dislike Duval don't like him is because they claim he just hides behind his Oakley sunglasses. I read an interview some years back and he explained that he has very sensitive eyes and he wears Oakleys because they fit his face snugly and keep out the wind that otherwise would dry out his eyes to an irritating level. I liked Duval. I don't recall if it was in the same interview or another one, but he really seemed like he was extremely devoted to his wife and kids and placed his family first in his life - he wasn't just one of those types who boast about being a "family man" on his 3rd cigar and 4th whiskey on the 19th hole, while missing his son's game or his daughter's dance recital. He was also asked about his religion and while he conceded he was spiritual, he declined any further comment and said something to the effect that an individual's religion is a personal matter that should stay personal. It would be nice if more athletes took that approach. I'd like to see him make a comeback but too many health issues have impacted his game and that has probably had too much of an effect on his confidence. When you think about it, it is almost a wonder that so many professional golfers can have such extended careers, with all of the stress they put on their muscles and spine. I'm surprised that we don't hear about more back injuries on tour.

Dumb argument. He wasn't contending that Spieth is a better golfer, just that his participation level based on number of tournaments played, for the purpose of discussing status as a full-time member of the tour, was higher than that of a several top-ranked golfers who are full tour members. To make a school analogy, he's talking about attendence to be considered a student at the school and you're trying to say that he was talking about grades and class rank. If you spent as much effort making intelligent posts here as you do trying to be devastatingly clever, you'd probably have some worthwhile things to say. And you'd probably have enough spare effort left over to come up with a comprehensive plan to solve global warming.

I'd be in for the Dells. It's been the better part of a decade since I've played Wild Rock (it was still called the Wilderness GC back then), but it was a gorgeous course. A bit pricier than I like to pay, though, but one can get a $59 coupon for Sundays after 11a.m. through golfwisconsin.com. A good alternative might be Devil's Head. It's a very nice, challenging and hilly course and if we schedule it for early September (which would work well for my busy summer schedule), greens fees are only $37 with cart (non-peak season starts the end of August).