robertspages

I quoted the commissioner of the LPGA, and your factual foundation is Scott's big mouth and empty opinion. You have been calling people names and called me a "crankpot nut". Now, because you don't like my opinion you are talking about banning me. This site is lame, as my threads are the ones that have drawn the most attention and interest. I'll do you a favor, pal, I'll find another board that doesn't have a name calling cry baby that moderates it. Good luck with your one thread response about every two days. If I moderated the board, you'd get somewhere. With you, you have the same losing hubris as the "Dikes on Spikes" Tour.

You think your blanket opinion carries any weight? I just posted something that shows the LPGA doesn't even have the market to get sponsors for tournaments in January and most of February, yet you talk about 2 event in February? "Clarmoring Sponsors"? You are deluding yourself. The LPGA wouldn't even if a network contract for the US Open if it weren't piggy backed as a package of the men's US Open. Dude, the LPGA isn't prime time weekend sports entertaiment, for a reason. Your comment about the image being these players that appeal to the male audience, that's lame and not accurate. Anika Sorenstam is the poster child for the LPGA and the other players you speak of are not promoted in anyway that would be appealing to the male audience. Laura Baugh talked about letters going out to wear sexy clothes, but it was just suggestion. Needless to say, as Laura said, it was not well received by the most of the members of the LPGA. Like you, the LPGA needs a reality check. No, your deluding yourself if you think your unsupported commnet about a few players being promoted and sponsors "flocking" proves anything at all. I didn't realize you spoke for anyone but yourself. Coming from you, it doesn't bother me in the least. I'm a successful professional with a wife and three children. I think the fact that you called me that speaks to your own issues. I speak my mind, regardless of political correctness. If you can't handle that, it's silly to call me names. I'm well educated and a successful professional , so you can knock that off. If my comments offend you, just say so. I won't change them, but at least I'll know why you are spewing out childish names like a cry baby.

I shot a 77 on an easy 129 slope and 6400 short yardage course. I hit 14 greens, but they are large greens. I also had 37 putts, but they are still punched with holes and sand and I put everything out. The fairways are sparsely rye grass with the dormant bermuda not coming back yet. But, the rought is really nothing but dormant bermuda which isn't hard to hit out of. But, in the fairway, the condition of the season makes for terrible fairway lies, and I play the ball as it lies unless there is a USGA relief rule that allows otherwise. I hate that they overseed the fairways for tourists, because dormant bermuda is a good winter surface to hit off of. Because of the US OPen and the problems with overseeding Rye and the seedlings that cause "Po" to germanate on the greens, #2's fairways are all dormant bermuda right now. I wish other courses would follow suit. Overseeding the Tees is all that is needed, if that. I hit a lot of fairway woods off the tees, as this is super short yardage. This course has dense Pine tree lined fairways, so it helps hitting 3 woods to stay out of the tree lines. Right now, I'm struggling to get my confidence back so I'm playing the more user friendly markers and courses. If I can get my Handicap down to 5 or 6, I'll step up the yardage on some days to hit the longer irons and more drivers. My highlight was a driver and a 4-iron to the middle of an uphill no wind aided 494 yard par 5, a par 4 for the pros these days. I had a tap in 4. The ball was sitting down yet I still managed to burn a 4-iron on the front and run to the middle. Hopefully, that last hole will get my confidence back a little.

I understand everything you said, and your latest comment comes after that fact. If Tiger doesn't break the Nicklaus majors and Snead's total PGA Tour wins, you'll be claiming you were misunderstood. But, the internet keeps a record of everything you write. Just like Dan Rather, I love how the new media outlets are making the old media insiders take it up the backside. The media coronated Woods as the best ever, then backed off since he's been moved aside as the top ranked player. He's a ratings pleaser and the media will still coddle and dote over him to no end. But, in the end, if he ends up going south and stinks it up during his 30's and 40's, the media will get it up the back side.

Nice try, but it's you who need to look it up. As for your 1991 comment, it's very much the image of the LPGA in 2005. You work in the media, so you are not allowed to say things like that with out the rest of the media putting you out of the business. I can say it, and it's quite true. The lesbian groupy contingent is quite prominent at any LPGA event one attends. In the first Ladies US Open at Pine Needles, it was the talk of the town. This isn't about what is morally right, it's about the poor image of the LPGA from a marketing perspective. Let's face it, the LPGA is a loser for most media outlets but it's force fed through the USGA pigyback and in other ways. Cable TV is the only market that will pony up for the LPGA, and that isn't prime time TV. That's right up there with the playboy channel, except the playboy channel is more profitable for the media. When I heard Beth Daniel in an interview about Sorenstam playing at Colonial, it was pathetic. She was nearly crying with jealousy about how the LPGA has players that can play and it's a great tour. Like it or not, no one can legislate what people like or dislike. The overwhelming audience has no interest in watching Beth Daniel and company play golf on television. The LPGA can change that, but it will need to take a bold stand on changing it's marketing strategies. The ban on the opposite sex playing their tour isn't the answer.

The LPGA Tour has lost dates and sponsors, yet, they still don't get it. Aside from political correctness on gay pride, the LPGA doesn't understand the audience they have to reach if they want to expand instead of implode. Womens professional tennis is more successful than mens. Why? Because the main audience for women's sports is men. Most women don't watch sports. Most women would rather read romance novels or go shopping. Women's basketball is subsidized to keep it afloat. Why? Again, men make up the audience. What do men want to see when they view the weaker-sex-in-sports? They want to see something that is physically attractive to men. Women's tennis has that. Women's golf could have that, but they don't market it. If there was a huge lesbian audience, the LPGA would do great. The fact is that gays make up a tiny segment of the population. "Dikes on spikes" is what the LPGA is called away from the public spotlight. If they want to change that image and reach the only real audience they have, men, they will drop the political correctness and start marketing the players that have the feminine assets that attract the male sports audience. In addition, they need to hope that one of the most attractive players to the male sports audience takes over the top sport on the tour. Sorenstam looks boyish and is flat emotionally. She has no sex appeal whatsoever, and makes no attempt to have any sex appeal. That's fine, it's a free country, but it will do nothing to improve the pitiful ratings of the LPGA Tour. Nancy Lopez was the best thing that ever happened to the LPGA Tour, but she's older and retired. Beth Daniel, Betsy King, Karie Webb and Anika Sorenstam, they would get great ratings at a gay pride parade.

On Topic, Scotty Doo, repeat after me: Who is the #1 player in the world? You need to hide out for a week or two;)

Statistically speaking? What the heck? Your heavy arguing about 2003 gives you away. Let's talk about 2004, pal. Do you think Tiger played better than Vijay? On the statistics, there is only one statistic that matters, and that's Woody has 8 majors and not 18!!! Your argument about Tiger being on the camera all the time is an excuse for his pitiful conduct. His GD's have been the cause of many fines. My favorite was, after a shot from the wet rough in 2002, when he took his club in the British Open and started chopping the ground with a repetitive full axe motion on his way to an 81. Els has a little better score in the same conditions. The guy is a big cry baby when things don't go his way. As for the Tiger "hating", you used that word, pal. I don't like Tiger, but I don't hate him. He's bad for the game because he used GD's and slams clubs whenever things dont' go right. Ratings are great for a lot of things that are not good, so that is irrelevant to what's good. For you, Tiger lover, I'll be on your butt like a pit bull when Tiger doesn't even come close to the 18 majors or 80 plus record of Sam Snead. The guy has a swing predicated on power and has a thrashing tempo that will never keep him at the top of the game from much longer. Only time will tell, but I'll be on your Tiger loving butt when all the media forgets all the talk about how he was statisitcally on pace, used to be ahead of pace, to break the 18 major records. Right now, nothing will be settled for this year until the Masters. Winning Sand Diego and Doral proves nothing. Nick O'Hern showed others that Tiger is a lot of hype if you play some golf. Long way to go this year. As for Tiger playing only the tough events, that's because the guy tries to skip the other events so he is fresher for the big events. That's an argument that Vijay Singh is better, not worse. Tiger admitted he couldn't play a full schedule like that. One thing that people disagree with you on, the world ranking system is a joke and needs to be changed. Tiger doesn't deserve to be #1 yet, not with the year he had in 2004. Michelson should be ranked over Woody, at this point. The things a joke that is promoted to promote this guy. I'll tell you this, there are plenty of people who are sick of this Tigerganda. Many are too afraid to see so because it isn't politically correct. Singh is a guy who said he hasn't seen any racism in this country and he plays quiently without the show up fist pumps. Singh is hated by the low class and low moral media. Tiger is doted and coddled by the media. That should tell you something.

During what time frame? It certainly wasn't last year, during the entire year. This year, Tiger has only won one more tournament. He's played better, but not by much. Tiger is a media pet project. He's also a political project. He was touted to be the best golfer ever, yet he hasn't won a major since Rich Beem spanked his butt. On the rankings, if they are so easy, explain them. I agree that the rankings should be started at the beginning of the year, from scratch. For you Tiger lovers, why does Pat Perez have to apologize for slamming a club? Tiger Woods is the biggest cry baby in the business. He slams clubs and curses anytime things don't go his way. Bottom line is that the World Rankings have been criticized for good reason. They are a joke. As for this stregth of field crap, I guess Vijay's win at the PGA and over Tiger head to head was a fluke. Also, did anyone know that Vijay's record in the majors was better than Tiger's in 2003. Yet, ole strength of field Woody won the player of the year. It's a joke. Look at Michelson's record since the beginning of 2004, it's way better than ole Woody, in the majors and accross the boards. This year, one lipout that falls and Lefty has one more win than Woody. Right now, they both have two wins. What we do know is that people are sick of the Tiger Woods promotion. He hasn't done crap in over two years in the biggest strength of field events. Els and Singh have all won majors and more tournaments than Woody over the last two years. All three have played better in the majors in the last two years.

I live in Pinehurst, and have played all winter. Still, the lowest I could get was an 8.1 index. Right now, I'm a 9.4. I took a lesson from Kelly Mitchum, who has made his last two cuts on the PGA tour when it comes through here, and he said my problem was coming over the top, as well. When I went to see him, I was about a 12.4, so it helped a lot. But, I think I've reverted back to the old habits.

I think it's about 60% luck. I've holed out from 162 yards, but it was on a par 4 that I had to pitch back to the fairway. It was for birdie. I've holed out a half dozen wedge shots from about 100 yards, and countless pitch shots from the 20 to 50 yard range. I have a buddy who played the mini tours and beat Billy Andrade in the junior golf days. He said he has 9 holes in one and has holed out from 100 yards or more so many times that he can't remember. He figured at least 100 times. Nice guy, who beats my brains in when we play.

My low 18 is a 76. My low 9 is a 35. My handicap is 9.4, and has never been lower than 8.1. I usually go in streaks of about 4 or 5 holes, then choke and implode. I have a hard time maintaining a smooth tempo for 18 holes.

This thing is so stupid. It should be based strictly upon how many tournaments you win, with a little extra weight for the majors. The strength of field thing is a joke. If you win a PGA tour event, it should count the same as any other regular PGA Tour event. Why penalize players who play the tour more. If anything, points should be taken away from players that conserve and play less tournaments. The system is like silly voodoo, it needs to be simplified and explained. Also, the vote for PGA Tour player of the year should be a point system, not a popularity contest.

Art Wall had 40. Getting a few is luck. Beyond that, it's a combination of luck and skill. Over time, if you hit enough shots at the hole, some will go in. I've hit a lot of ones that just barely missed, and I had a double eagle shot sit an inch from the hole, but I'm still at zilch.