Clambake

Bubba cannot manage the ego and voices within his own head. There's no way he could manage if others were in the mix. The day that Daly is announced as Ryder Cup captain is the day I determine the PGA is a useless organization only interested in a carnival side show (minus the bearded lady, strongman, and Siamese twins), and I will no longer watch or care about the Ryder Cup ever again.

Wouldn't color coding be a lot more confusing too? The numbering system - which seems to have worked well for many, many years - is straightforward. You hit a 5 longer than a 6 which is longer than a 7, and so on. Who could possibly remember that blue is longer than magenta which is longer than yellow, but not as long as green which is shorter than pink. I think there is a very goodreason you couldn't find anything like it on Google.

I was just there about a month ago and played Pebble as a single on a spur-of-the-moment urge one afternoon. I don't think there is any way around the $495, as it just is what it is. But skip the cart fee and walk - it's a really great course to walk.

It was for the media folks - they think Bud Light IS a premium beer.

I agree with your comments about country club golf and I'm tired of the incessant belief that a course has to look lushly green to be attractive. I adore the look of links courses, and love playing places like Bandon, Pebble when it is dry, and local courses that also run firm and fast. And I play on poa annua all the time. It offers some playing challenges, but it can be properly managed (look at the 2008 U.S. Open). I concur it was a fun Open that delivered some exiting results, and the course was interesting with its many playing options. But my point had nothing to do with that. Itwas that the grass was an issue at Chambers, and not just because it was firm and fast. They clearly had issues with the turf, and the comments from the players and press who were on site along with many spectators at the course confirms this. So why is it that the organization supposedly at the forefront of grass development struggles so much? They aren't making a very good case for their research.

Does this mean if JFK's eyesight hadn't been good he might have ended up sleeping with Albert instead?

The USGA touts that one of their main missions is turfgrass research, and they advertise this constantly in their fundraising messages, saying that they fund extensive programs to develop and improve strains of grass which will support environmentally sound golf course practices. The U.S. open is the crown jewel in their portfolio - it is our national championship, and acknowledged as one of the most important golf tournaments in the world, with enormous prestige and attention given to the event and all involved. Given the USGA's standing as one of the most significant organizations in all of golf, and in fact in all of sport, it is befitting that their finest event should showcase everything they stand for. So why is it that such an organization, supposedly so influential in turfgrass development, consistently delivers to the world an annual golf tournament there the grass looks terrible, is nonexistent in many places on the course, and plays so poorly that even the most restrained players in the world cannot hold back their criticisms? They have the luxury of closing courses long before the tournament to manage turf conditions, yet they consistently fail. Nearly any local course superindendent would be ashamed to have their course look and play like the U.S. Open, and many would be fired if they let their course reach such conditions And this isn't just an issue from Chambers Bay; every Open for years has shown similar characteristics. This isn't a case where it needs to look green to be good, and that's not what I'm pushing for. Brownish and dormant is fine. But it seems the message from the USGA is that they have no clue how to grow and keep grass. They don't know how to manage fescue. They have no idea what to do with pop annua. They don't know how to manage speeds without destroying much of the surface. They don't know how to prevent invading grass species take over. They don't seem to know how to distribute water to gain consistency. I've already been very disappointed in the organization for their bumbling on equipment rules and geologic speed to address issues like pace, but I've always felt at least they are still doing some good for the game through their research money. But if the Opens are their showcase, one wonders just what are they spending all this supposed research money on?

Years ago I was at a tourney with a friend and we struck up a conversation with a CBS cameraman, and my friend asked how did they manage to follow the ball so well. The cameraman said that working the Tour every week you learn where the guys tend to hit and learn their shots, and then they kind of predict where it is going to go before they find it in the viewfinder. Fox likely has a bunch of cameramen new to golf, and they haven't learned yet how to do his. Unfortunately, they probably never will if they're only broadcasting one tournament a year. Frank Chirkinian must be rolling over in his grave.

Los Angeles city courses used to run on 6 minute spacing, and it was a disaster. Typically, if you had a tee time around 8:30am they were already 30 minutes behind, and then after starting so late you had the fun of a 5 to 5 1/2 hour round.

Jenkins has become a parody of his former self, sort of like Andy Rooney in his waning years when he just became a blathering bitter old man, barely a shell of his former self as a writer and satirist. There comes a time when athletes should have hung it up long before they become an embarrassment to themselves, and writers are no different. Jenkins reached that point sometime during the Bush administration. The first one. What one wouldn't give for a contemporary Bernard Darwin, someone who was a gifted writer who happened to love golf. Instead it seems most of the golf writing these days is more TMZ-ish, with manufactured drama substituting for what it lacks in insight and well-written prose.

I would expect the sand saves difference to be even greater (with pros being much better). Since they are in bunkers more often and spend much more time practicing sand shots than even scratch amateurs, I would expect them to be far more proficient at the skills. And they play out of pristine bunkers all the time, raked to perfection, while the amateurs are dealing with the often poorly kept bunkers typical of public golf courses.

Erik, something in your comparison numbers seems off. Well, not your numbers, but the "scratch golfer" stats. It shows sand save as 63% for the scratch golfer, but that number would almost put them in the top 10 on Tour and way above the Tour average of under 50%. It also shows GIR as 69%, which would put them in the top 30 on Tour and 4 percentage points higher than the Tour average. Scrambling is about equal to the Tour average. It seems unreasonable to believe that an average scratch golfer is better than the Tour players in these categories, and in some cases much, much better. Thoughts?

Not dangerous, but with a little practice you can start earning a few extra bucks on the weekends performing LASIK surgery on your near sighted playing partners.

Not trying to dissuade anyone from enticing Erik come out to SoCal, but since the premise of this thread was a lack of Aimpoint instructors in our area it seems appropriate to point out there are a number of Express clinics planned in the LA area over the next couple months. X11/X2 clinics at Woodley, Rancho Park, Black Gold, Tiera Rejada, show on Aimpoint's website if anone is interested.