chasm

That nice Bubba Watson is in the trees. What a shame.

A lot of it is to do with familiarity, I think. More of the decent players from Europe and around the world are playing a lot in the States these days, which used to be a rarity.

My bookmaker is offering a promotion on the PGA this year. If you back someone other than McIlroy, and he wins, you get your stake back. Nice offer. On this basis I have money on Garcia and Rose.

Sounds something like Lah-ee-ten, with the stress on the first syllable? Yes, I can see the US and UK commentary teams having endless trouble with that...

That'll be something of a long drive competition in itself. It'll be a circus, that grouping, I feel quite sorry for Kaymer being in the middle of all that. Mr Watson is certainly going out of his way to advertise that he's a dick. The number of his fans must be getting smaller every day.

Curious about this. You mean that if you hit the green in regulation, you're more likely to three-putt than one-putt? That is (just) my experience also, but I'm a poor putter. I'd be interested in other people's stats on this.

Well, not exactly. But I take your point.

My handicap is currently 17.7. Over my last 25 rounds I have averaged 4 GIR. Dismal, I know. But hitting two more isn't going to cut my handicap by eight shots.

I'm struck by the fact that you are a nine handicap but say you usually hit only six greens in regulation. You must get up and down pretty well.

Driving ain't my big problem at the moment. Hitting the green from the fairway is. However, a tour pro would put me 40 to 60 yards nearer the green. On my home course, that would mean i'd be approaching most of the par fours with a wedge, and taking nothing more than a 7-iron to the longest. Plus he'd be hitting the green on all the par threes, which are some of the most challenging holes on the course. I'd be shooting in the mid- to high seventies instead of the high eighties, I'd guess.

Personally, I don't eat anything during a round. However, if you believe your blood sugar level is dropping and that is contributing to a loss of concentration, it might help to eat small amounts of carbohydrates as you go. Doesn't much matter what - energy bars, dried fruit, chocolate, whatever. Just bear in mind that your gut can't absorb much more than 60 grams (240kcal) of carbs in an hour. So if you eat at a faster rate than that, you'll still be digesting it well after the round is over.

...er, back to the Europen team? The Westwood who played on Sunday in the WGC would be a cert for a Captain's pick. The Westwood impersonator who played in the Open and the US Open, not so much. We'll have to wait and see which one turns up at the PGA.

Do you have some inside information from his PT? If not, I'd have to ask why he would be so stupid as to do that. He has plenty of history with regard to returning too early from injury. If he wants to continue playing into his 40s I'd say he'd be well advised to focus on rehab until next season.

Looks like a match, now. Sergio looking impressively resilient under what can only be described as an assault from probably the best golfer in the world, at the moment.

He hasn't won this, yet. Still prepared to bet on Sergio.

It may be, it may not be. But even if it is, in itself, trivial, he is becoming injury-prone. Every time he's injured he has less chance of returning to anything close to his best.

That's a pity. I'm not a great fan of his, but he has been a great player, and it's very unfortunate if injury shortens his career. It's always tempting to come back too early, and the older one gets the more recovery time is required. I fear the worst.

Every European wants to see Woods in the US team. His Ryder Cup record was poor even when he was playing well. Playing as he is today, he'd be a liability. Hoping to see Sergio close it out today. It would be nice to see him go into a major with a win of this magnitude boosting his confidence.

It must depend, mustn't it, on context? If you have a good lead, you might choose to do a Nicklaus and play conservatively, because you know your opponents have to take risks to catch you and the chances are that some of those risks will land them in trouble. If you're chasing, you haven't always got the option of the safe play because that won't close the gap. if you're a rookie with a prospect of a top-ten finish in a major, you're going to protect that position rather than take silly chances trying to make up eight shots on the leader. And so on. I'm never likely to play in a 72-hole, 4-day tournament. But I imagine one's strategy is to play the percentages for the first two rounds and try to make sure of making the cut, taking opportnities as they arise but no stupid risks unless one is a shot or two above the projected cut line. Then review the situation as it develops, taking account not only of one's position relative to others in the field but also of the difficulty of the pin positions, weather conditions etc. I'd be surprised if many professionals stuck to one strategy - "go fo broke", "super cautious" or whatever - irrespective of the circumstances.

It comes down to the same old argument. I don't think any rational person can argue that Palmer played better golf than Mickelson has played, just like I don't think anyone can argue that Nicklaus played better golf than Woods has played. But if that's the only question, it's a trivial and rather boring question. In virtually all sports, training and equipment and depths of field have improved, so the standard of the current generation is higher than that of previous generations. It's a no-brainer. So, is Mickelson a better golfer than Palmer was? Yes. But does that mean that Mickelson is a more gifted golfer than Palmer was? Not necessarily. Would Mickelson have been better than Palmer had they been contemporaries? Again, not necessarily. People are products of their times. They do enough to win at the time. We can simply never know how much more Palmer would have had in his locker had he been brought up with modern courses, equipment, teaching methods and the intensity of modern competition. And we can never know how Mickelson's gifts would have expressed themselves had he been brought up in the 40's and 50's with persimmon woods, balata balls (if you think he's wild off the tee now, watch him with those suckers!) and the generally more relaxed attitude to training and competition that was then current. Palmer was able to do enough to be the best golfer of his time. It is therefore at least arguable that he had more unexpressed potential than Mickelson, who has been trying his hardest to beat the best and, usually, failing.

My scores seem to be improving. I haven't played much in competition for a while, so it hasn't yet had an impact on my handicap (generally speaking only competition scores count, here) but I've scored in the middle 80s a few times lately in social games. Three things I have changed, all inter-related. 1. When in trouble, play more conservatively and concentrate on avoiding turning bogey into double-bogey or worse. @iacas doesn't approve of this because he thinks it leads to being too conservative, but for me it seems to be helping. Previously when in trouble I'd go for the ambitious recovery shot if I had any chance of making it. Now I go for the best shot I have a high probability of making. It's limiting the damage. 2. Stop striving for distance and swing easily. I'm old, but I'm a big and still fairly muscular guy and this obvious truth has been very hard for me to assimilate - it seems natural to me to try to capitalise on my power. But if I just swing and let matters take their course, I make more consistent contact. I'm hitting my drives about 250 now with less perceived effort than it took to propel them 230 a couple of months ago. Less wayward, too. 3. Very closely related to 2, above. Concentrate on tempo. Lots of my problems seem to stem from quickening up. If I keep myself nice and slow and rhythmic in the backswing and in transition, other stuff comes right - I can keep a steady head, get my weight forward, all that stuff. As soon as I quicken up it all goes to hell. I've still got a long, long way to go, but it's encouraging. And there's a useful positive feedback loop. The more decent shots I hit while swinging easy, the less frustration leads me to try to thrash the cover off the ball, which was causing me to quicken up, and so on.

Not a moron, but someone troubled by some sort of compulsive disorder. There is something OCD-like about his mannerisims on the course. He looks as if his pre-shot routine has developed to help him deal with intrusive thoughts, much as OCD sufferers engage in compulsive hand-washing and similar behaviours. And this story suggests that the problem extends to other areas. Nothing childish about it. He'd probably do well to seek some help, though, I'd guess it is making quite a negative impact on his life.

I'll play the most ambitious shot that I think I've a good chance of making. Before, I was tending to play the most ambitious shot that I had any chance of making. And for now, if playing more conservatively cuts out most of the double bogeys, it'll bring my handicap down significantly. No doubt my strategies will evolve as my capacity to execute them improves.

A few weeks ago I was beaten in our club matchplay championship by a seven handicapper. On our way round he commented that I didn't hit the ball like an 18-handicapper and that when he saw me play the first couple of holes he had thought he'd never be able to give me 11 shots. By then, of course, he was 3 up having dropped only one shot to par in nine holes. He then said something that has stayed with me. "When I make a mistake," he said, "I just concentrate on making bogey." That's exactly the opposite of what I had been doing. When I made a mistake I tended to try to recover the lost ground, and often got into still more trouble as a result, with doubles and triples littering my card. Since then I've taken his advice to heart and concentrated on limiting the damage. It seems to be working - on several occasions recently I've played below my handicap in social games. Now I need to take that attitude into competition.

On the contrary, that is the only way of shaping the debate that makes any sense at all. Jack didn't play in the present, Tiger didn't play in the past. The only way we have to compare them is to speculate on how each might have performed in the other's era. That may be futile, but it is impossible to have the discussion on any other basis. [quote] They had the careers (or are having the careers) they had. That's what we can discuss.[/quote] But those careers took place at different times under vastly different circumstances. If our discussion has to ignore those differences, it is meaningless.