BruceMGF

Speaking of Oosthuizen, did you hear Feherty's ironic quote yesterday of the common Afrikaans phrase "'n Boer maak 'n plan"? ("A Boer makes a plan") Oosthuizen was making a triple-bogey at the time. Do European golf announcers often know some Afrikaans? I remember Nick Faldo last year translating as Oosthuizen talked to his caddie in Afrikaans.

At 0:38 I want to say it's Gardner Dickinson because of the Hogan-hat. But I remember Gardner with more big waggles, a bit like Jason Dufner today.

Seve was 15 years old in 1972. I don't think this is him.

... any of these players seen in this youtube clip? This is somebody's home movies, originally taken on Super8 film, at the 1972 PGA Championship at Oakland Hills. This was from a practice round (movie cameras were allowed in practice rounds, not the tournament itself). Apparently a rainy day, which doesn't help the clarity of the filming. At about 3:49 I recognize Jack Nicklaus, Tom Weiskopf and Arnold Palmer teeing off in succession. About 3:03 is a lefty, undoubtably Bob Charles. I actually attended this tournament as a young 'un, although not this practice round. I remember meeting Byron Nelson who was there as a broadcaster.

Yes, what's because the main topic on this thread - the QUALITY of the specator experience - didn't seem to be the subject of Costas's bit at all. WRT spectators, I only recall him mentioning the reduced number. I thought of Fenway, which has hosted the World Series twice in this century, only after my initial posting. Costas didn't mention that.

Did anyone else think the Bob Costas bit comparing Merion to the Yale Bowl and Butler Fieldhouse missed the mark? I thought the question about Merion was whether the course could still be challenging to modern players, or more precisely players hitting modern golf balls with modern clubs. That the winner would be 27 under par or something like that. Obviously it is still plenty challenging, or at least can be made to be. Costas thought playing at Merion was like playing the NCAA Final Four at Butler Fieldhouse or the Super Bowl game at the Yale Bowl. But there's nothing about those venues that would affect the actual playing of the sport, is there? The knock against those would be they wouldn't hold the expected number of specators or accomodate the modern media presence. I see no reason why the games themselves would be unplayable at those places, or why there would be any question why they would be. Nothing wrong with the playing surfaces. (In fact, Butler still plays at Butler Fieldhouse, so college basketball is obviously still playable there.) At Merion, the USGA chose to accept a reduced number of spectators. I don't think the media was inconvenienced. The TV coverage seemed unaffected. I think Costas was comparing apples to oranges.

At the same time?

The threesome I want to see: Tiger Woods Jim Furyk Adam Scott Think about it.

I hadn't seen her play in ages until this past weekend's LPGA broadcast. She looks like she's completely changed her swing. It looks like she's trying to imitate Kuchar's swing and not coming close. Weird bailout follow-throughs. And the way she bends over putts. Remember how low Arnie used to bend over? Further than that.

(Let's see if this looks better) This weekend, a couple things I saw on TV came together. First, was Kelly Tilghman (I think) on Golf Channel referring to this weekend's tournament as part of "the regular season", obviously in distinction to the Fedex Cup thingy in the fall. The other was a "sports update" on CBS with an NBA player making a commonplace statement about a win that we've all heard a thousand times - "we haven't won anything yet, we're not too excited, what matters is winning the championship ..." So could this happen to golf? Imagine Adam Scott after winning the Masters: Q: So how does it feel to win? A: I haven't won anything yet. The good thing is it's a lot of Fedex points. Q: But the green jacket? Augusta? The tradition? A: The only thing that matters is the one at East Lake. Although it's early in the regular season, these Fedex points help put me in position for a playoff run. Do you think it could happen? Do you think it would be a good thing if it did?

This weekend, a couple things I saw on TV came together. First, was Kelly Tilghman (I think) on Golf Channel referring to this weekend's tournament as part of "the regular season", obviously in distinction to the Fedex Cup thingy in the fall. The other was a "sports update" on CBS with an NBA player making a commonplace statement about a win that we've all heard a thousand times - "we haven't won anything yet, we're not too excited, what matters is winning the championship ..." So could this happen to golf? Imagine Adam Scott after winning the Masters: Q: So how does it feel to win? A: I haven't won anything yet. The good thing is it's a lot of Fedex points. Q: But the green jacket? Augusta? The tradition? A: The only thing that matters is the one at East Lake. Although it's early in the regular season, these Fedex points help put me in position for a playoff run. Do you think it could happen? Do you think it would be a good thing if it did?

The ASCII codes are still called CR and LF (line feed). So it's the ENTER key. Still not appearing correctly.

Why are my carriage returns not showing in my posts today? I just hit CR twice after the last sentence. And again now. It looks fine on the edit box. But it's all run together.

In today's broadcast, discussing the Tiger/Rory friendship (I don't use words like "bromance". Ewwww), there was mention of the "good old days" when top rivals used to hate each other. Um, who exactly? And not some media-manufactured hype, and not just envy. Who really hated whom? I mean guys in contention for #1, not the Sabbatinis who rub people the wrong way. Anyone know?

It's not what it claims to be - a ranking of who's best (2nd best, 3rd best, etc.). It's just another ongoing competition where gaming the rules of the event is as important as scoring low.

I just don't understand why this is called "The Rory Era".

It would be good if something like chess timing could be worked out: a base time for the round and additional time per shot (I'm referring to what's called Fischer timing in chess, not the old time-control method). Problem is: you're holding up everyone behind you in golf, but not in chess. I wonder if part of the problem is the general trickiness of today's courses, especially as they're set up for pros. Every shot requires a big think. If courses were straightforward, things would go quicker, but pros would all shoot 40 under par - unless courses were lengthened to about 8500 yards. Then it would take 6 hours just to walk.

There's definitely something to the idea that helmets make players more likely to "lead with the head". Similar arguments have fallen on deaf ears (of the sports establishment) for years but in the last few years there was a debate in women's lacrosse (theoretically non-contact, unlike men's lacrosse) on whether helmets should be required. It was pointed out that helmets and padding in men's lacrosse, ice hockey, football, etc., had only made players more aggressive and, arguably, increased the rate of injury. (Of course, "protective" gear in general can be used as a weapon. And it is.) I never heard how it turned out. Maybe they're still arguing. At least the idea's getting a hearing.

Question about Na's "bad timing" confrontation late in the third round: Why? I thought you were no longer "on the clock" if you caught up to the group in front of you. At that point in the round Na was clearly caught up - even having to wait for the group ahead to clear the green. Surely the PGA doesn't want him to hit into other players just to adhere to a "shot clock"!

I didn't say I'd do it, or that I'm advocating it ... but I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened. Nor would I have much sympathy for the shouter.

I can't believe no-one's mentioned Duffy Waldorf. I'm usually oblivious to fashion but he always has me shaking my head in disbelief. I would mention Ai Miyazato and those kneesocks but I understand they're functional - she has circulation problems or something. So like Sabbatini's hat (he's had skin cancer), she gets a pass.

I would think 99% of the on-course fans would appreciate it, too. Come to think of it, I wonder if any of those loudmouths has ever been punched by the fan standing next to him. (And what the hell does "mashed potatoes" signify, anyway ...?)

Who would you like to see interviewed? Answers can be dead serious, humorous, or "it'll never happen but it would be cool if it did". My first answer: Elin Nordegren.

The Masters Tournament has a rule that anyone within 10 shots of the lead makes the cut. In this week's Player's Championship, as with so many other tournaments these days, the cut eliminated players closer to the lead than that. Which brings up the question: what exactly is the cut *for*? If the purpose is to eliminate those obviously out of contention, it's doing that and then some - it's probably eliminating players who could still win. Is the purpose logistics? Too many players? But they're all there Thursday and Friday. For the convenience of TV? There's TV Thursday and Friday. Beside, the idea long predates television. Or is it there because "that's the rule, and we've always done it that way. Too bad if you could still win", when the *original* justification was probably to eliminate those clearly out of contention. Should the cut be re-thought? Modified (a la the Masters)? What happens if, some weekend, players six or seven shots out of the lead are cut? Will we say "wait a minute, does this rule make any sense?" Does it?

Tony Kornheiser says that the recent publicity over long-term effects of head injuries could be setting the NFL on the road to decline - very much like what happened to boxing. Michael Collins (not the Irish rebel, or the astronaut) disagrees: http://www.rantsports.com/redzonetalk/2012/05/12/the-nfl-isnt-going-anywhere-despite-what-tony-kornheiser-says/ Methinks Mr. Collins doth protest too much. First he says that Kornheiser "owes a great deal of his existence (and his paycheck) to the game of professional football". Yeah, probably. Why does that imply football will retain its popularity? Or, for that matter, that other sports won't replace it in popularity and supply Kornheiser with continued employment? Or maybe, just maybe, there really will be fewer jobs for the Kornheisers of the world. "The NFL isn’t going anywhere anytime soon" says Collins. Well, that's really not a disagreement. Kornheiser is predicting a slow decline, not a sudden disappearance. "Boxing didn’t do anything to protect their athletes, and find ways to make their sport safer." Hmmm. What about the whole transition from bare-knuckle to modern boxing (I know, that wasn't so recent)? What was that about if not safety? And mouthguards, the three-knockdown rule, etc. Collins: "But as long as there is an option for guys to make six to seven figure salaries playing football as opposed to making a meager living in a nine-to-five job, the NFL is going to carry on." There are other ways to make big money, many of them athletic. And Kornheiser's point is that people are going to stop watching or sponsoring the sport in such big numbers, not that athletes won't want big money. There was a time when the three biggest sports in the US were baseball, boxing and horse racing. Baseball has held up the best, though it's not what it used to be. Boxing used to be the biggest money sport - that is, the one who paid its top performers the most. It still exists, of course, but how many people can name the heavyweight champ these days? When it was Joe Louis or Muhammed Ali, everyone knew. Horse racing? The Triple Crown is still big news, but daily attendance at the local track is less than half what it was at its height. Probably because it used to be the only way to gamble legally in most states. Casino gambling was legal only in Nevada, and state lotteries didn't exist. Sure, you could gamble illegally, but that was risky. Those games were run by career criminals, thugs who would break your arm if you didn't pay your losses quickly, or won too much, or if they just didn't like your face. So yeah, the NFL could decline. And the head-injury news could be the reason.