More comment on Hank Haney's November tip, "Know Where to Miss", this one from Bernard Stittleburg of Atlanta.

Haney writes an interesting piece...however I think he fails to realize that most golf course, at least those that I play, do not provide the weekend player a pin placement sheet. Usually the player is only told that the pin is either in the front, middle or back of the green. The rest you have to guess. It would be nice if all golf courses.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Dom Furore)

Beyond the theme of course remodels and how they should be done, the subject of yesterday's blog, one recurring topic at the Golf Digest panelist summit in Pinehurst over the weekend was whether playability is an element of greatness. Alister MacKenzie once praised Pine Valley but said that he did not count as great a course that was not playable for "every conceivable level" of golfer.

Tom Fazio, who acknowledged yesterday that he'd been accused of building courses that are "too easy", echoed MacKenzie's point of view yesterday. Fazio said his favorite course in the world was Pine Valley, but admitted it violated one of his fundamental rules in designing courses:

I personally believe that courses need to be extremely enjoyable for all levels of golfers. I believe you can make a course that's hard for Tiger and easy for beginners....and it all has to do with the placement of hazards.

If I can make a rule for golf, if I was rating a course, I'd say no hazards perpindicular to the line of play. I'd take off points for that.

But you take that beginner, how many balls will he hit in the creek?

Pine Valley is my No. 1 course. Golf Digest has that right. But I'd never design a course like that. Because it doesn't work for the beginning player.

--Bob Carney

(Photo of Wanamaker Course at PGA Village courtesy of PGA Village)

Greetings from Pinehurst and the third annual Summit of Golf Digest panelists, who rate courses for our Best New, 100 Greatest and Best in State course lists. Architects Rich Mandell, author of a new book on Pinehurst, John Fought, Dan Maples, Rees Jones, Geoff Shackelford and Tom Fazio, as well Pinehurst Superintendent Paul Jett, spoke on the theme of restoration and remodeling.

It was a theme that provoked fervent debate over just how closely a remodeler--or restorer--was to rely on the original plans, drawings and stated intent of the designer. It resembled a judicial debate on how literally one is to interpret the Constitution--with the strict constructionists in one corner (led by Shackelford and Fought) and the more liberal interpreters, Jones and Fazio, in another. Shackelford argued passionately for restoration that reflected and returned to original plans for old courses—a literal reading of the design "texts, " but with modern agronomy, irrigation, etc. He is especialy adamant that "Golden Age" courses of the Twenties and Thirties--by MacKenzie, Macdonald, Ross and others--not be tampered with.

Fought seemed to agree, recounting the meticulous research he had done to come up with old Ross plans and photos before undertaking the remodeling of Pine Needles prior to this year's U.S. Women's Open. Shackelford likened the process to the restoration of a classic car which on the outside appeared almost as it had when it came off the line, but might have new leather seats, a more powerful engine, and a catalytic convertor. A restoration that retained, as Shackelford put it, the antique flavor and feel of the original. "But then it's just a shell!" said someone in the audience.

Jones, who has remodeled Pinehurst No. 2 and his own No. 7, not to mention several Open venues, seemed to agree that this devotion was cosmetic. "Form follows function," he said. He criticized an almost fad-like return to "splashy" old unkempt looking bunkers as neither practical nor germaine to designs and symptomatic of an overly literal approach. "Every golf course with splashy bunkers should not make the (100 Greatest) list." Golf Digest Architecture Editor Ron Whitten has written something similar, saying literal restoration "is a substitute for imagination," a characterization that Shackelford scoffed at Friday night. It was that attitude, Shackelford implied, that justified an abandonment of a many a design's essence. Example: Recent Augusta National changes. (see Geoff Shackelford.com for Geoff's take on the Panelist Summit).

Fazio, who did that remodeling, was having none of it. "Put yourself in Hootie Johnson's postion. You are in charge. And you have the best players in the world and you have a venue that used to contain long, strong par 4s--No. 1, No. 5--that required a long drive and a mid-iron. What do you do. Well, it's a simple issue. You just fix it. You do it." Fazio suggested another exercise in imagination. He said imagine Donald Ross, today, watching Tiger Woods tee off on Pinehurst No. 2. The ball explodes off the tee. "Donald Ross has never seen anything like this, says Fazio. "What do you think he thinks? He's going to say, 'If that's the way golf is now, we need to look at that.'"

The three-day discussion and debate spilled over into the criteria Golf Digest uses for its course evaluations, especially two concerned with remodels, ambience and conditioning. "Should we eliminate conditioning as criterion?" Whitten asked Paul Jett. "If you eliminate conditioning, then call it the 100 Greatest Designs, not the 100 Greatest Courses," said Jett.

Golf Digest does not use conditioning in its Best New compilations. "I think conditioning and ambience ought to go off the 100 Greatest, too," said Jones. Factors such as ambience, conditioning and aesthetics keep deserving courses--he mentioned Cog Hill-- off the list underservedly.

Jones argued for using a new measurement: "Continuing interest." How does the course appeal, and play, over time. Essentially, is it the kind of course that dazzles and then dulls, or one that you'd want to play every day?

For our panelists, or anyone who loves golf course architecture, it was wonderful stuff and a weekend well spent.

--Bob Carney

More mail on the hole-in-one lady in the November issue. "Kudos to Dave Kindred for exposing Jackie Gagne in his fabulous article," writes Rodger Hergert of Rockford, IL.

Sixteen holes-in-one and no one ever sees the ball go in the hole? And a six-handicapper shooting a 61? I'm sorry but that is pushing the limits of believability too far. I also applaud Golf Digest for not recognizing the 16 "aces" as a record without more substantial proof. I find this whole story ludicrous and disturbing.

Ric Carroll of Grand Rapids had a more, well, visceral, reaction to the piece.

I have read your magazine for quite a while now. I keep the monthly issue around, and often review the articles. This issue had me fired up though. Your article about that lady with the holes in one? I got so mad, that I tore the 2 pages out with her pictures on them. I could not stand seeing her smug... little fake smile anymore....

"Shame on you lady!.....

--Bob Carney

More mail on John Barton's piece about Papwa Sewgolum in the November issue. Teacher Mel Sole, now of Pawley's Island, knew Sewgolum personally.

I had the privilege of playing a few practice rounds with Papwa at Kensington Golf Club in my first year as a Pro on the South African Tour in 1968.  I also played with him later at Durban Country Club prior to the South African Open in 1969.  He was a thorough gentleman and always had a helpful suggestion if I did not hit a shot the way I intended.  My biggest regret was not tapping more of his great knowledge on the short game.  His chipping and putting were masterful.

Sewgolum's "cross-handed" grip was one of the reasons for that. In his Breaking 100,90, 80, 70 in the same issue, Bobby Clampett suggests trying lead-hand-low on chips.

Sole again:

Papwa was a brilliant golfer who was struggling to compete in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The apartheid system took away his prime golfing years and I'm sure, if  not for that, he would have enjoyed many tournament victories and maybe a few major championships as well.

For more on Sewgolum, there's a 2005 biography by human rights lawyer Christopher Nicholson, Papwa Sewgolum: From Pariah to Legend, referenced in Barton's story.

--Bob Carney

"Two articles in the November issue grabbed my attention," says reader Dan Farrar, who lives in Tennessee.

The first was the article about Papwa Sewgolum and his "backward" (cross-handed) grip and how tremendously accurate he was within 100 yards of the pin.  The other article was Breaking 100/90/80/70 again referring to using the "backwards" or cross-handed grip for chipping.  (Bobby Clampett on Breaking 100).

 
Having played golf for 40 years left-handed and using the cross-handed grip for my driver, fairway woods, irons and putter,  I will admit to having drawn some strange looks and comments from other golfers and even from motorists passing by the tee when I was hitting.  One such interested observer was a Mississippi Highway Patrolman who stopped his squad car and ran up the elevated tee by the highway, hand on his gun, to watch my cross-handed drive.  After my 230-yard straight shot, he left shaking his head.  He said he had never seen anything like that and he just wanted to watch.   My golfing partner says "you're both inside out and backwards!!!!!"

I had an old boss, Dan, who had the chipping yips. It was painful to watch. He tried chipping with his eyes closed. He tried shipping left-handed, he went to short game schools, everything. But all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put his chipping together again. I think your tip--Papwa's and Bobby's, too--and that "wrong-handed" grip might have saved him.

We've got quite a few letters on the Papwa story. Some take Gary Player to task, as did a South African writer in our story, for not speaking out against the apartheid policies that in the end defeated Sewgolum. Here's an interesting 1966 Time Magazine story that quotes Player as saying:  "I play golf. I don't meddle in politics."

Thanks for the letter.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Dom Furore)

Leopold Lacy, a loyal California reader with a great name and real dedication to the game writes with question about a Hank Haney tip:

I enjoy being able to try the many suggested offerings I read about every month, always looking for ways to improve my scoring ability. Virtually all of the suggestions and drills are things we can put into use and try for ourselves. But Hank Haney's recommendation to "take a page from a tour player's course management book" seems to be something most of us don't have access to. It's easy to see how that kind of information would help increase scoring opportunities. But even some of the nicest course guides you buy at the counter (and I have many) can't touch the kind of information found in tour player books. Any suggestions on how a tour player want-to-be can get something like this for our favorite courses?

Those books that the pros have aren't easy to assemble and not like the ones they hand out at the counter. When we had the U.S. Girls' Junior Championship at our course a few years back, the caddies passed around a book of notations on our course. It was like reading a newspaper story about one of your relatives. How could strangers know so much about your family... or, in this case, the course you played for half your life?

Well, here's how: They make notes. They make measurements. And they put shadows over places you don't want to be. The most useful part of those diagrams were on the greens. Take the time to chart your greens and you will putt more effectively, I guarantee you. A friend of mine did that for us on a tournament course we played in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where, because of the mountains, even a two-footer was dicey, and it saved us.

Here's a couple pages from caddy George Lucas's book for the TPC Stadium Course. Check out the greens. Do you know yours that well?

--Bob Carney

(photo: Dom Furore)

Rocky C. of Pueblo, Colorado, got a kick out of November's Golf Guru advice about dealing with the self-anointed teaching pro, one of the most irritating subspecies known to golf. He wrote to tell us and send along a little advice of his own:

For the "guy who gives unsolicited golf tips" why not just tell him the other members of the group don't appreciate his comments and the next time you play, sit back and watch the paranoia!!!

For the guy with the white saddle shoes: soap, warm water, a towel and, for the unshineable scuffs, use white-out from your nearest stationary store. It works! Finish them with an oil sponge for a shine and water-proofing .

To clean the spikes/cleats, use a kitchen scrub brush (Wal-Mart, 97cents).

"Irritating sub-species"--that's great. I'll be using that!

--Bob Carney

(Illustration by Chris Gash)

Dave Kindred's story about Jacqueline Gagne has generated a lot of mail, mostly dismissive of Gagne's claims of 16 holes-in-one.

"Please, please, pleeeez, give readers no more impossible hole-in-one stories unless they have been absolutely, positively verified," says Bill Benjamin of Evanston, Illinois, representing the majority. Tim January of Cave Creek, Arizona, is a bit more straighforward:

Horse----!!! Her claim, not your article. Thanks for exposing the circumstances of her holes in one.

North Carolinian Krish Arunachalam wrote:

It was not just shocking to learn that [Dave Kindred was not able to document] all those aces but I was more appalled by the fact that the respected golf teacher and commentator Peter Kostis seems to have authenticated her claims by merely looking at her swing.

Kostis appeared on CBS's Early Show and called her swing anyway "the real deal."Says Krish:

My swing would be the envy of Elkington and I hardly ever in one-putt range the fifty percent of the times I hit the par3 greens. I am a decent enough golfer with a 13 handicap and am still waiting for the first hole in one.

Don Nichols of Riverside, California says Golf Digest's decision not to recognize Gagne's record was wise:

I just read the article on Jacqueline Gagne and her hole-in-one record in our November issue. I agree with your decision not to recognize this lady's record. I can't believe she made that many aces with no one actally seeing the ball go into the cup on most of them.

...If he'd walked the 6th at Dye and the 8th at Shore, he’d know if there were any logical place a ball rolling toward a hole cut behind a swale could have ended up without anyone seeing it. Otherwise "found in the cup" by someone other than Jackie Gagne sure sounds like "ace".... Next time you have space to fill, please don’t waste it. Show me how to get out of a bunker from a downhill lie.

As the story points out, Kindred made repeated offers to sit down with Gagne to talk about her aces, where she made them, and how. He was unsuccessful.

Gagne's call was a voice mail in which she proposed a deal of the sort that no reporter can make. She would sit for an interview if I first faxed to her lawyer the name of a source in my reporting along with what the source had said.

With all the mail, to both Golf World and Golf Digest, we've yet to hear from one of Gagne's playing companions who saw one of those aces go in..... and wants to set the record straight.

--Bob Carney

From Hugh Downing in Doylestown, P.A., where it doesn't get much prettier than this time of year, but could be a bit warmer, comes this suggestion, wrapped in a thank-you note:

I would like to suggest the following subtitle for the November, 2007 issue: "The Wrist Issue". Having been fighting a major hook and problems with my wrist position at the top of my swing, the article "How to Start your Swing" by Jerome Andrews was a revelation. To prove what he recommends (club and arms independently moving first), just look at the swing sequences of Ernie Els and Trevor Immelman.  In both cases the wrist cock has the club toe up and shaft in a direct line with the target, rather than a more "roundhouse" approach, moving everything in one piece.

Andrews is no fan of the one-piece takeaway, nor a tilt toward the target at the top of the swing:

A one-piece takeaay causes a fatal flaw in your backswing, a flaw that can be overcome only by compensations and athleticism....with a one-piece takeaway, the body turns early, then has to stop and wait for the arms and club to catch up. When the body has to wait, it tends to tilt toward the target, and the arms move out of sequence and lift. Unless you make a compensation, you lose a lot of power.

This hit home with Hugh...

After about a week of practicing the independent takeaway, I went to the range, and was amazed at the improvement in my ball striking. Dramatically increased distance and ball flight height with the first swing. And no hook! If anything, my flight was moving a bit too far right from "fade", but that's a matter of shoulder position and my weak, anti-hook grip.

As an “older” golfer who returned to the sport about 5 years ago after a 30+ year lay-off, I found the November issue especially entertaining, but after a summer of lessons and frustration, the takeaway shown by Mr. Andrews was the missing piece of my puzzle.

Congratulations, Hugh. And welcome back. When the weather warms up, I'll come visit and you can teach me how to hit a hook.

--Bob Carney

From Colorado, where the drives fly a mile high and youthfully long, comes Stack & Tilt advice from devotee Shane Wischer, to others who've adopted Stack & Tilt, but struggled a bit with the long clubs.

I'm writing regarding the reader's question about how to implement the Stack & Tilt on the driver swing.  Instead of placing (or stacking) the ball in the center, place (or stack) the center of the driver head in the middle.  This moves the ball up in the stance 2 or 3 inches giving the swing a sweeping ascending blow.  You can use the same Stack & Tilt principles and it works with the 3-wood also!

We covered how to hit the driver in the second Stack & Tilt article.Their instructions didn’t specifically address ball position, but they do talk about the sweeping angle, which is what Shane is getting at. Here’s the part that applies to his comment (there are two more parts on hitting driver in that article):

“One piece of advice you hear a lot for the driver is to sweep the ball off the tee. Golfers try to do this by hanging back and releasing the clubhead past their hands. This causes the swing path to veer to the left, with the clubhead cutting across the ball. The result is a pull or a pull-slice. For a draw, the club must approach the ball from the inside, and the way to do that is to keep the handle in front of the clubhead through impact. Set up with the handle forward, and maintain that relationship by shifting continuously to your front side coming down. The club will swing in to out, causing the ball to start right and draw.” (from page 134, Sept. issue)

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Chris Stanford)

Perseverance: Continue in a state of grace until it is succeeded by a state of glory.

--Seymour Dunn

November's cover story is Ernie Els' advice on driving the ball, but in his Saturday press conference at the HSBC World Match Play, he had pretty good tip on putting:

Q. Did you change anything in your putting because it was much, much better this afternoon?

ERNIE ELS: Absolutely. I had to make some kind of a change. It was awful this morning ton the greens. It was very, very frustrating. I made a change. The lunch hour, I felt I was hanging too far on my right side on address, and subsequently I was hitting up on the ball and not giving a true roll. I just leaned on to my left side and really kind of tried to punch the ball, make the stroke a little shorter and a little more punchy. So I had a much better roll. I think the putt on the first hole made me feel a lot more comfortable. You know, I made some putts.

That's advice I've heard Trevino give, too.  Els also had some mental-side help for the rest of us, not the least of which is the acknowledgement that even a player like himself gets seriously down when things go wrong.

Q. What do you do, I saw you out on the fifth and you were really down on yourself and you went and had another couple of putts. What do you do then within yourself to keep the rest of your game together?

ERNIE ELS: This game, it tests you so much. I can't imagine another sport that tests you mentally like this game. You know, you always want things going your way, and most of the time, it doesn't and you've got to find a way of countering those feelings. You know, I guess with persistence today, I kind of got through it. It's not that I played better than Henrik [Stenson]. I think it was just persistence. I kept on working on my game all day, and that's why I like 36-hole match play. I would have lost 1-down this morning, but come back, and you win three four holes and you win the match. You've got to play well all day.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Andrew Reddington/Getty Images)

After reading Jaime Diaz's piece on Rory Sabbatini in November, Joel Dimacale from Rancho Palos Verde, California sees conspiracy in the Sabbatini/Woods feuding. Here's Jaime:

So in May of this year, when Sabbatini defiantly emerged from being dusted by Tiger Woods in the final group at the Wachovia with the suggestion that world No. 1 was "more beatable than ever" and that he preferred playing against "the new Tiger"--veritable trash talking relative to the sport and certainly the notoriously avenging target--Sabbatini had little credibility and no political capital.

And Joel's theory on all of this:

Don't you guys think that this so called "rivalry" between Rory and Tiger is orchestrated by Nike?  Keep in mind that they both under contract by Nike.  This kind of buzz is free publicity for their players, I meant their other "players".  I am guessing that it won't be long and a Nike commercial will feature both of them.

Joel, I'm getting soft in my old age. I thought they just didn't like one another and I was kind of enjoying the jabbing.

Now I'm seeing swooshes. Though it strikes me that Sabbatini and Woods would be two of the toughest guys out there to choreograph into a feud. And Sabbatini's behavior has sure convinced the bloggers that the rancor is real. Here's one entry that Jaime mentioned in his story, from sandtrap.com:

"Spit out your gum. Learn how to dress. Shut your pie hole."

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Getty Images)

On the heels of yesterday's admission by Padraig Harrington that he plays better in fear than in confidence, comes a letter from Californian Paul Cervantes on Golf World's John Hawkins' depiction of Wet Woody Austin at the Presidents Cup ("All For One and One For All").

"His mental fragility is frightening." No, the media's ceaseless characterizations of Woody Austin as man on the brink is what's scary. No one who plays professional sports for a living, let alone one who has made well over $2,000,000 just this year, is anything like fragile. Why not let Woody Austin revel in his great play at the Presidents Cup? Real lovers of the game just aren't that interested in whether he fell in the water or not. Sometimes I think that Golf World's staff would be better suited to covering Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.

Paul, while I tend to agree that Woody is mentally sturdier than he leads us to believe, your "no one who plays professional sports...is anything like fragile" got me thinking: Jimmy Piersall, Bill Lee, Dennis Rodman, Mark Fydrich, Steve Sax, Chuck Knoblauch, Rick Ankiel....and I'm not even into placekickers yet. Readers, I'm sure you can add to the list....

--Bob Carney

Sorry to hear about Padraig Harrington's loss to Anders Hansen today in the World Match Play. We thought his interview earlier this week, when he talked about his emotional state post-British Open, was one of the more refreshing and candid of the year. Harrington's sport psychologist, Golf Digest Contributing Editor Bob Rotella, says "Golf is a Game of Confidence," and Gio Valiante advises us to play "Fearless Golf." But Harrington admits that he operates differently.

Q. Have you spoken to Bob Rotella about this?
PADRAIG HARRINGTON: Yeah, it's an interesting one, I have spoken to him about the fact that I tend to play better with fear than I do with confidence. Fear is not a good emotion to work on because it obviously is more stressful but it has worked for me over the years.
For many years when I came out on Tour with the fear -- it took me six or seven years on Tour that I would actually come out after my winter break -- I usually come out with the fear that my game wouldn't be there and I would wake up and you know, I would be back to being, you know, not good enough, let's say.

So it is something that drives me on. You know, there is certainly a fear after The Open Championship that I won't play -- that I will struggle because of the motivation after you win so big that you feel like you've made it, and that certainly is making me want to get out there and work on my game. I'm fearful that I will take it easy.

Confidence, in Harrington's game, translates into bad habits....

I look at it more of a practical sense, as in what's the difference. When I'm confident, probably my strategy gets a little bit -- could get a little bit aggressive and then I get a little bit disappointed when it doesn't come off. When I'm not confident, I tend to be very good with my strategy, pick the right shots, play defensive shot when they are needed, and then, you know, play the aggressive shots; when I have an opportunity I tend to take it. That's physically what's happening. That's my nature. That's who I am.

Would that Michelle Wie had that kind of self-awareness. She's happier, she says today in USA Today. Based on Harrington's comments, maybe that's the problem.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: AP)

In case you missed his post here a couple of days ago, Jerry Borin of Morristown, New Jersey, did a neat take on Ernie Els' October cover story, Hit it Miles Down the Middle. In keeping with the MLB playoff season, Jerry compared Ernie's advice to what he'd learned in baseball...

After playing golf for over 50 years, when I saw Ernie Els' tip "Free Up Your Driver" in the Nov. '07 issue, I finally realized why I and other "duffers" fail to maximize distance and maintain down the middle direction with their drivers. Els says,"feel like you're cracking a whip on the way down, not tensing up to hit something hard".

Cracking the whip is the secret I never heard before. It fully explains why I and the majority of golfers who took up the game either in their teeens or later in life have a tendency to "hit something hard" which we all learned growing up playing baseball or softball. However, the significant difference between baseball and golf is that the baseball bat has no flex, it's a hard object hitting a hard object. A golf club flexes, so that the power and energy from the downswing is stored in the shaft and then transferred to the club head...in baseball the bat is heavy vs. a golf club and its hitting area is significnatly larger and less concentrated than in the golf club head. That's why we swing harder and our goal is contact, not necessarily distance in baseball. In golf, off the tee, it's all distance..you get no points for "bloop singles" off the tee in golf!! In baseball, it's a very successfull result!

Jerry's analysis echoes something I've been hearing a lot from teachers of late: Namely, let those arms swing and quiet that lower body. It feels like a shift in teaching from hit it with the big muscles to hit it with the small muscles...the arms and hands. I had a lesson this summer in which my teacher, Sean Busca of Brooklawn C.C. in Fairfield, CT, said that after a full turn I want to have the feeling of swinging the arms down and through while the hips don't move. Very close to what Ernie is teaching and what Borin picked up on:

In baseball we were taught as kids to make contact by swinging hips, arms, shoulders and wrists through the ball in a fluid motion. However, in golf, because of the cracking the whip phenomenon, the player is pretty much releasing the club earlier and allowing the flex with the stored energy to bring the power, not the golfer's own energy and swing effort . In golf when you crack the whip, you're actually "throwing " the small club head at the ball rather than hitting it with a hammer-type blow the result of which is determined by where contact is made on the bat...in the middle you get distance and direction, at the end of the bat, you lose distance and will probably not hit the ball down the middle of the field.

Quite a lesson from Mr. Els after all these years. It may have come up before, but I must have missed it(no teacher ever brought this up to me). But now I got it! Thanks Ernie...now I finally understand the source of power for getting maximum distance off the tee.

Thank you, Jerry, great analysis.

--Bob Carney

David Owen's story off-the-beaten-path Scotland has generated a lot of mail, both from those who've experienced part of David's trip to those, like Canadian Derek Field, who've only dreamed of it:
   
  

 Scotland has always been a dream trip of mine, but I never really knew much about it until reading "Back-Roads Scotland" in your October 2007 issue. I'm sure I'm among others when I say that if I went to Scotland, I'd make sure to play Carnoustie, Turnberry, St. Andrews... you know, the usual list of "to-play" courses for North American tourists. I never even considered that Scotland may have other hidden gems. After reading this article, I must congratulate the author on his ingenuity, his desirable passion for golf, and most of all, his way of describing the characters and courses he ran into along the way.

      The descriptions that he gave of the courses were remarkable, and while some left me chuckling with delight, others left me baffled. I think it's odd how some courses there can be played without a putter, or even putting surfaces. I also find it odd that some courses can survive on merely a donation box and no set monetary value for playing the courses. But when I think about it, I remember that this was the birthplace of golf and most of the courses he played have been left the same since the early twentieth century.

      On a weekend trip to British Columbia, I read the entire article over and over again, and it held me so captivated that my heart is now set on playing the most original and unknown courses of golf's homeland.

It was a different read for Michael Ogilvie, who not only has played Forfar Golf Club, one of the stops on David's trip, but is a former member there:

For being such a small place, the town is very proud that two of it's former club champions have represented Great Britain on Walker Cups teams. Firstly Sandy Saddler in the late 50's/early 60's, and more recently Steward Wilson who, a couple of years ago, was also "The Open" Amateur Medalist.

The club itself is also very proud of the fact the course hosted the Scottish Professional Golfers Championship one year in the mid 60's. As a high-schooler at the time I remember caddying for one of the lesser pros, but also vividly remember British Ryder Cupper, Eric Brown's dashing play that led to his win.

It was great to read that David enjoyed the course, flax furrows and all, and that he would play it again.

Has a copy of the article been sent to the club? If not I will be happy to give them my copy; I just happen to be going home to visit family there from October 18th to 28th.

Thanks, Michael, please do. Glad you enjoyed it.

--Bob Carney

(Photo by: J.D. Cuban)

With Olympic track star Marion Jones' admissions this week, drugs are back in the news. Matt Rudy's well-researched piece in the October issue, which explains why the Tour's decision to start drug testing was the right one, brings this letter from Don Murray:

After reading your article in the October 2007 issue, some interesting scenarios came to mind regarding drug testing. We often make the mistake of assuming a certain drug that may be considered performance enhancing is also illegal (HGH for example). If Commissioner Finchem is hoping to fall back on the PGA Tour's player code of conduct agreement, which I assume covers all illegal activity, he is may look hypocritical should someone test positive for marijuana for instance. Would it be handled differently if they got arrested with Marijuana in their possession, but not detectable in their blood? Considering the fact that marijuana is available as a legal prescription drug in many states to control pain only confuses the issue. Are recreational drugs like marijuana to be considered performance enhancing or just illegal? The sad reality is what is taken from Mr. Finchem's comments isn't concern about player health or even unfair advantages being sought, but only about the precious Tour image. Tour players break the law regularly as do many citizens of this country whether it be in a tiny, illegal tax deduction or driving with 1/100th of a decimal point over the legal alcohol level in their system, it doesn't seem to be Mr. Finchem's concern until they actually get caught.

I'm curious, as you are, about the gray areas. Another one: A player is taking a drug for ADHD...it helps him focus...is that an issue? Right now, Finchem has answered with a very specific list of banned substances. (Anabolic agents, hormones, anti-estrogens, diuretics, stimulants, narcotics, cannabinoids and beta blockers.) You can bet there will be adjustiments. But I'm not sure it's just image that the Tour's worried about. It's also trust. I'm reminded of something Tommy John, the great Dodgers and Yankees lefthander, said about Deane Beman's stance on drug testing. "Beman used to tell me, 'We have drug testing on tour. It's called the four-footer." That wasn't good enough for Tommy. "Fans need to know that what they're seeing is legitimate."

From Rudy's piece:

Even if the true number is closer to zero than 50, it's clear that the idea of professional golf not needing to worry about steroids is as outdated as the notion that golfers aren't athletes. "The reality is that the public is slowly coming to the view that performance-enhancing substances are prolific in sports," says PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem, who is expected to announce a set of anti-doping rules for the tour later this year. "Whether we have an issue or not doesn't matter if people think we have one."

--Bob Carney

I thought we might hear from you on this. Jack Sebeslav of Ontario—Canada, not California—took exception to the Johnny Miller comments during the Mike Weir/Tiger Woods singles match at the Presidents Cup.

Laurels to the US team for their solid victory.  Well done gentlemen!!  Darts to Johnny Miller for his tactless comment concerning Mike Wier as he and Tiger Woods were being introduced on the first tee of the singles matches on Sunday.  He (Miller) wondered aloud if Tiger would "play nice" and throw Mike Wier "a bone". Sure, Johnny....Tiger is going to throw the match. What an outrageous comment!!!  and then later in the match, after Tiger had gone one up and narrowly missed his birdie putt on 17, he suggests that Mike's birdie putt is the "biggest putt of his career"!  Hey Johnny....this guy won the Masters....so playing a match with Tiger Woods is certainly not the highlight of his career.  It was great to see Mike rally on 17 and 18 to win his match with Tiger.  I wonder if Johnny thinks Tiger went in the tank so that the "little Canadian" could win in front of the home crowd.  Wow!! 

Jack, I'm with you. I don't think Tiger's DNA contains a gene for competitive compassion. I asked our editors who covered the event and they agree. But I must say there was debate in the halls of Golf Digest about this very issue. There were those who thought Tiger might have played faster and looser on that final hole because of his feelings toward "host" Mike. Not me. There were others who thought the U.S. players, including Tiger, saw this as an "exhibition" because they were smiling so much, clearly not taking it as seriously as the Ryder Cup. Wait. Isn't that fun-loving approach what we envy about the Europeans?

Anyway, you put your finger on a bit of condescension in the commmentors' remarks toward Weir. I think they became a bit discombobulated around those raucous Canadian crowds.

--Bob Carney

He’s the most syrupy interview you’re ever going to get. But the people love him. He connects with the public more than any player on the tour. He gives them knuckles, he talks to galleries, he smiles, he thanks everybody. When he won the Players, he thanked the coach he’d just fired, Rick Smith. I wouldn’t have done that, but Phil is Phil. Stuart Appleby on Phil Mickelson

Thank you for interviewing an athlete who succeeded as a result of hard work, perseverance, and an attitude befitting a professional (Stuart Appleby). No thank you for devoting multiple pages of your publication to someone who has yet to succeed in any fashion in the professional ranks and whose attitude is anything but professional (Michelle Wie).

What a phony! He talks about Phil Mickelson like he's his peer. I'm sure he don't want to compare records, in the number of tournaments won, and majors. Appleby's quote" it sounds like I hate Phil, but I really don't." What bulls___. What a jealous person. Oh, get your bread sent over from Australia, as you don't like any of ours. And while your at it go back yourself. Nothing here satisfies you, go back to that backwater country you came from. You make a good living in the USA.

Just by way of comparison....both did pretty well in the Presidents Cup: Mickelson got three and Appleby two points last weekend. Though we noticed they didn't chat much.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: J.D. Cuban)

...detractors refer to the sport as if it were some esoteric rite like cat worship or the midnight sacrifice of newborn albino pheasants to Huaxtuphal, god of mirth...Joe Queenan

"Bravo to Joe Queenan," says Jeff Benjamin of Saginaw,

for so eloquently chiding all those scoundrels who dare accuse golfers of not being dedicated workers. I hope my non-golfing boss doesn’t read this letter, but I think such critics are best ignored as mostly jealous of what makes golf such a wonderful recreation. We need not make apologies for spending our own money and our own time on something that, for most of us, is completely frustrating. What’s not to like?

Hey, Jeff. Golfers seem to be fighting back. Jimmy Cayne at Bear Stearns has been the poster (pillory) boy for golf's bad influence on business, but lately his fellow golfers have come to his rescue. From Marketwatch.com:

Chairman and Chief Executive James Cayne was roughed up by the New York press this summer for leaving the office early to play golf as his company battled the biggest crisis of its financial life. At least one of his fellow duffers seems to have forgiven him.Joseph Lewis, a former waiter at his father's eatery in London's East End, according to British press reports, has invested $860.4 million in Bear Stearns shares. Through several investment vehicles, he now owns 6.97% of the company's stock, outpacing Cayne's own holdings of about 5%, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Lewis, who is 70, built his fortune through real estate investments and currency trades and likes to rub shoulders with famous athletes. In 2000, he paid about $2.1 million at a charity auction to play golf with Tiger Woods and Mark O'Meara. Woods and fellow pro Ernie Els are currently investors in a $1.3 billion private residential community being built in the Bahamas by Lewis's main investment company, Tavistock Group.

Of Tavistock Cup fame. Not to mention the fact that Bill Gates' golfing buddy, Warren Buffett, is also rumored to be buying a stake in Bear Stearns.

Here's another arrow in your quiver. Most popular magazine among Bloomberg users: Golf Digest.

--Bob Carney

Shell Lake, Wisconsin is home to Dave Riffey, who writes more letters to us than anyone and who is, apparently, leaning no on the Presidents Cup. Which in French Canadian is NO!

The President's Cup will never come close to the Ryder Cup. Why??  Today is a perfect example.....TIGER VS. WEIR !!!
 
As long as they let the network, NBC, control the pairings:
 
IT WILL ALWAYS BE A SECOND CLASS EVENT!!!
 
THE ONLY REASON FOR THIS PAIRING, IT'S FOR THE RATINGS !!!
 
THE RYDER CUP PAIRINGs ARE DONE TO WIN ...NOT TO PLAY THE RATINGS GAME !!
 
SAD !!
 

1. NBC, as far as our reporters can tell, had nothing to do with the pairings. The captains did. But unlike the pairings in the Ryder Cup, the captains do not pretend to do it blindly. In Presidents Cup play, the number one player is usually paired against the host country's top player.

2. The Canadian crowds made this a bigger event than you (or the New York Times, for that matter, which devoted little coverage to it today) did. The crowds' energy clearly enlivened the broadcasts, all to the good.

3. Our reporting, from Jim Moriarty, Jaime Diaz and John Hawkins, will point to the relaxed atmosphere and our players' devotion to captain Jack Nicklaus to explain the U.S. success, "our first Presidents Cup victory on foreign soil." I'll suggest another reason: It was played in same hemisphere, within a time zone or two of the players' own, and in the same time zone in which their last bit tournament was played. Just my opinion, but I think players are cheerier in that situation than they are, say, in Australia, where we looked like we had just arrived from another, non-golfing, planet.

But if you're suggesting, Dave, that this is a lesser event than the Ryder Cup because the players had more fun and the captains admitted to creating marquis pairings, I disagree. So does our Tim Rosaforte, who called it "just the right level" of intensity on the Golf Channel. It'll never have the tradition. But it was still fun golf to watch.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: AP)