As we prepare for the Presidents Cup this weekend, I asked John Hawkins, who has written about the captains' choices on golfdigest.com, to reply to this letter from a New Jersey Golf World reader:

Dear Editor, I've heard no mention of it, but to me it is obvious why Greg Norman chose Adam Scott for the President's Cup. Adam Scott is spiraling downward and his continuing drop in the world rankings would have had a huge impact on his playing schedule next year. As a President's Cup contestant he is now eligible to automatically compete in many events he would otherwise not be eligible for. In essence he has a free PGA tour ride for two years. Greg Norman is shamelessly trying to save Scott's career at the expense of his dignity and duty to his team. There were similar charges leveled at Gary Player when he chose Trevor Immelman back in 2005. Why is Norman not getting the criticism he deserves? Scott Collins Chester, NJ

Hawk's response:

"I don't agree with that point of view and outlined my thoughts as to why Norman picked Scott in my internet column a couple of weeks ago. I think Norman simply saw Scott as the best option -- certainly the most talented and capable -- among the half-dozen or so players who might have been considered as captain's picks.

When you look at the guys who finished 11 thru 20 in the standings, every one of them came with a distinct downside. Most of them had very poor seasons. Others feasted on weaker competition. Sabbatini, who was 11th, was not going to be on the team unless he qualified because he rubs everybody the wrong way.

That is the reality of the situation. There is no way in hell Greg Norman would compromise the competitive makeup of an already weak International squad just so Adam Scott could play in next year's Bridgestone Invitational."

--Bob Carney

When Phil Mickelson cracked to Mark Rolfing of NBC Sunday that he won the tournament but Tiger Woods was getting the $10 million (“I was two back of him, I beat him by three. He gets the $10 million check, and I get $1 million.")We thought many of you would comment. We got a couple of letters. Here's one:

Dear Editor,
Was it just me, or did Tour Championship winner Phil Mickelson's "joke" about the Fedex Cup point system--coupled with his vagueness about participating in the playoffs next year--seem the tiniest bit ungracious? I mean, after not doing much in this year's playoffs prior to Sunday, he did grab an extra $3 million in one day.

Jim DelGiudice
Convent Station, NJ

We talked to Rolfing about it today. He was taken aback, too, he said, though he still believes his question--how Phil felt to win but not to win, as it were--was legitimate. Personally, I think that answer was Phil being Phil, trying to be funny and edgy. It is hard for me to believe he's not grateful for the purse--or the win.

--Bob Carney

The first letter about Golf World's Readers' Choice Awards strikes at the fundamental question of such surveys, and, predictably, takes on the Angry Golfer, John Hawkins who commented on the list:

Dear Editor,
Was the "Best Courses" supposed to be the best courses or just a popularity contest? Hawk writes, "I never understood how some many people could prefer the same flavor of ice cream........." If some didn't, we'd never fill up all the private courses we play regularly. But we do because the taste is different every time. Personally I'd rather have the ratings of the "Best Courses" from your sister publication (Golf Digest); they're not popularity contests and seem to be a little more "scientific".

Hawk says "Personally, Pacific Dunes is my favorite golf course in the United States." Well, personally mine might be Harbour Town. I've played that. But I've never played, Augusta, Pebble, Oak Hill, Pine Valley or some of the rest of Ross', MacKenzie's, Dye's or Nicklaus' masterpieces to personally compare it to. Come on Hawk, I love 'ya, and you've certainly had the opportunity to play far more of the "best" than I have. But let's not have a popularity contest to decide, let's decide the "best" courses the way we have been, and call this the "best courses I've ever played instead." No disrespect meant, look me up next time you're around Boston, I owe you 18 holes and a beer.

Tom Boland
Northborough, MA

Tom, your letter dissects the field of course rankings perfectly. There are two types: A) popular ballots created by reader/golfer surveys, or B) lists built on a specific set of criteria and compiled by editors who may or may not put their thumbs on the scale. (These lists often are supported by panels of evaluators). In the first category:, Golf World's Readers' Choice Awards and many of star ratings on golf web sites. In the second category: Golf Digest's 100 Greatest, Golf Magazine's Top 100 Courses, GolfWeek's classic and modern course rankings, etc.

There are readers who don't want to know what editors think; they want to know what other golfers just like themselves think. Those readers tend to like popular lists. On the other hand, there are readers like yourself who trust only to "expert" opinion on what's best and what's not.

And then there is Hawk--and other individualists like him--who will compile their own lists, thank you very much. I believe there are a lot of us like Hawk, who believe the most important list is one's own. After all, what's the question golfers tend to ask one another most often: "What are your favorite courses?" Or, "If you had one course to play every day, what would it be?" Hawk addressed that last one directly.

But you did not quote the most important part of Hawk's soliloquy, to my mind:

"The primary purpose of a survey such as this is to start a discussion that leads to a full-blown argument, which may or may not lead to all four big mouths taking second mortgages on their homes to finance a trip to the Monterey Peninsula, where they can decide for themselves if that journey to the hold ground was worth all the trouble."

That's when list A meets list B, and you have the most important list: yours.

--Bob Carney

Golf is like life, in that some people think it's easy and then feel the need to tell you about it.

Dear Editor,
I, like Tiger, had ACL reconstruction and cartilage repair on my left knee last year. The only difference is I'm 17. No doubt the rehab is harder than any other sports training I've ever done in my life, but mentally it takes a lot longer to recover. Part of me is surprised he has done so well this year, but from a personal view I'm not, considering I shot a 76 my first round after surgery.

Summer Cook
Hampstead, NC

Seriously, that's very impressive. I hate you.

-- Bob Carney

Golf World's failure to feature Steve Stricker as the main cover image after his FedExCup win in New York continues to rile the state of Wisconsin and you continue to, er, Badger us, about it.

Dear Editor,
Hi. Let me introduce myself. I'm Dennis from Wisconsin and follow my Wis. PGA Tour players regularly. My question is, what does a player have to do to get himself on your cover. I don't count thumbnail photos as being on the cover. Steve Stricker is having a great year. Let's see, he's number one in the Fed Ex Cup race. He's ranked number two in the world and is second to Tiger in the money list among other categories also. He just won his third tournament, with all the big guys in the field I might say, and again you snubbed him. I'm trying to figure out your politics. Please try to explain. Anyhow, I recently renewed my longtime subscription to Golf World and I truly am regretting it. I guess I will let it die a natural death in August of 2011. There will be other places to get my golf news. After all, I now have the internet. I guess I have no expectation of hearing back from you and I certainly can't think of a valid reason for snubbing him three times in one year. But, feel free to try.


Sorrowfully,

Dennis Findlay
Elkhorn, Wi

Dear Editor, Badger Nation: Steve Stricker 3 Wins Jerry Kelly 2 Wins Mark Wilson 1 Win Covers Zero Tiger 5 Wins 5 Covers No respect Glenn Henderson Oak Creek, WI

As my spouse reminds me, if you have to explain you've missed the point. I will not attempt to defend the thumbnail of Stricker on the September 14 cover with the great headline, "Mr. September", as adequate. How could it be! But it was Arnie's birthday and he has earned a bit of adulation and so "Long Live the King" with a vintage photo of a young, handsome Palmer seemed the right call at the time. I'm rooting for Steve to win at East Lake so his image on the cover in October will somehow make up for the pain you'll feel when Michigan takes out Wisconsin in Madison in November.

--Bob Carney

We can do 20 pages on the environment and get little reaction, but mention the pros or cons of cargo pants, cell phones, collarless or un-tucked shirts and the email lines light up. Golf course propriety--and it's apparent degeneration--sets you off. Recent evidence:

Dear Editor, When will the golfers decide to shave? They are beginning to look like a bunch of bums. We never saw this when Nicklaus, Palmer and Trevino--and many more--when they were playing on the tour. Before you know it, they will be in jeans and no shirts.

P.S. I hope that I am not the only one complaining.

Gloria L. Peacock
Walnut Creek, CA

Dear Editor,
I read your interview with Tiger Woods' caddy, Steve Williams. One question that you failed to ask him was why he takes his caddy bib off on the 18th green before Tiger has finished completing his round. He can be seen walking around the green shaking hands in a regular golf shirt looking just like one of the other golfers. Does he feel that this separates him from the other caddies? Is he embarrassed in his role as a caddy? Whatever the reason it breaks with the tradition of golf and shows great disrespect to the tournament sponsor, who paid dearly to have their logo displayed on all caddy bibs. Incidentally, Steve Williams is the only caddy on any tour to do this.

Gerald A. DeAngelus

Tiger, Phil, Ernie...nothing inspires your comment like golf course decorum, whether it's Steve Williams or the fellow with his hat on backwards in the next foursome. Not only here, either. When Jerry Tarde, in his Editor's Letter in November, set down the five "sacred" rules of private clubs, it unleashed a ton of comments both on our site and on the popular Geoff Shackelford blog as well. Indeed, within 24 hours, there had been about 80 comments after Geoff posted Jerry's list. Check out the poll on our site--it may surprise you--and definitely read

--Bob Carney

Photo: PGA Tour's Ryan Moore

You keep us honest. Not much gets by you, and recent Golf World issues on Arnold Palmer and the FedEx Cup gave opportunities to prove that all over again. Three good letters all making excellent points:

Dear Editor,
Regarding "What He Means To Me" in the September 14 issues of Golf World, I am very disappointed that you couldn't manage to come up with a quote from at least one woman. Judy Rankin? Beth Daniel? Nancy Lopez? For heaven's sake, how about Annika Sorenstam, pictured on page 6 with Arnold and her new daughter just born in the the hospital named after his late wife Winnie?

Karen McKeen
Amherst, NH

Dear Editor:
Mike Purkey's TV Rewind section in Golf World stated that, "Last time we checked, majors were PGA Tour events."  I don't think the USGA, R&A and the boys at Augusta National consider their tournaments PGA Tour events. The PGA Tour may recognize those events and thus consider prize money on the money list and may even give exemptions to the winners but they are not PGA Tour events owned or operated by the PGA Tour.

Sally Smith

Dear Editor,
I have been an avid reader and subscriber of Golf World for several years.  I have been a fan but recently have been disappointed in the magazine.  Steve Stricker, a multiple winner on the PGA Tour this year and a threat to over take Tiger Woods for the FedEx Cup has been shunned by your magazine.  After each of the tournaments that Stricker won he was overlooked for the cover of your magazine.  Granted, I understand there are numerous things that go into the selection process for the cover but after the third time he was overlooked I felt that this was a slap in the face of one of the finest golfers and nicest guys on tour.  My father, now deceased, was an Edgerton, Wisconsin native and my brothers and I have followed Steve since he debuted on tour. Cut the guy a break and give him his due.

Jack Hartzell
Pasadena, MD

Thank you all. As to the first two letters, we plead "guilty" and "guilty." As for Stricker, I suspect he'll have another chance to grace the Golf World cover before very long.

--Bob Carney

What I love about the FedEx Cup is how many letters it generates. Confusion, revulsion, admiration, all these sentiments add up to you writing. Here are a couple of your latest views, the first in response to John Hawkins' recent piece on how he'd "fix" the Cup, not that the PGA Tour thinks that it needs that....

Hawk wrote:

"Pro golf does not lend itself to a playoff format. The current model is flawed both inherently and procedurally and, thus, has virtually no chance of succeeding. Without the win-or-go-home scenario that defines playoff competition in team sports, the FedEx Cup will never generate widespread public interest or earn critical acclaim.

It's just a ton of guys playing for more money, eliminated because they failed to qualify for the next stage, not because they were beaten. There are no head-to-head matchups, no conference finals, no agony of defeat..."

His solution:

"No more than 30 players should be eligible for the Super Duper Payoff at the start of the process, not the end. Heath Slocum and the other 94 non-qualifiers can still play in the events and compete for prize money, but only the top 30 would continue to collect points. No playoff system works without a considerable amount of exclusivity. You should have to earn your way in, especially when the size of the prize is so enormous, especially in a game where the parameters of individual success are so clearly defined."

That won a lot of points with one reader, if not with our friends in Ponte Vedra:

Dear Editor,
If Golf World ever convinces the PGA to give GW readers a vote on the structure of the Fed Ex Cup playoffs, John Hawkins has my vote. His article on the subject, [A playoff system that still has problems, 9/21/09] is right on target. Keep up the excellent work to provoke some serious thought at "Camp Ponte Vedra". May this happen as I approach my "double snowman" birthday.

Dick Leabo (GW reader since time immemorial)
Seattle, WA

(Please, Lord, let me be 88, playing golf and emailing opinions to my favorite golf magazine!)

Dear Editor, The FedEx playoff system is a joke. But worse, I find it insulting, especially so in these challenging economic times. Apparently FedEx feels differently as they see a need to dump an additional ten million dollars on someone who is more than likely a multi-millionaire already. There are no regular season standings in golf other than the money title, so what are we playing off? We already know that Tiger is the Super Bowl, World Series, and Triple Crown Winner all rolled into one. This purse is nothing more than a way to get him to play tournaments he'd rather not play in. It adds nothing to the game. It adds no drama. Ask yourself, ten million dollars on the line for the last putt on the last hole of the last tournament. Pick your player. Do you really care if he makes it? It's a joke! Michael Epstein Carlsbad,CA

At the daily editors' lunch the other day, someone made the simple point that "at least I'm interested in the tournaments at this time of year, something that would never happen in the past." That, Michael, is a far cry from the grand vision of the FedEx Cup, but it rings true. This competition has nicely tied up what was once a frayed and unkempt end to the season. But I can understand how someone from Michigan, my home, or California, fighting bankruptcy, could see the whole exercise as wasteful.

--Bob Carney

Jaime Diaz's insightful Golf World column on Arnold Palmer on the occasion of his 80th birthday has drawn an enthusiastic collection of letters and email. Jaime wrote:

"Palmer's distinction was simple but definitive. In a sport that more than any other compels its greatest players to turn inward, Palmer stayed outward....Palmer's singular gift was that when he won--and even when he lost--he instinctively shared more the experience with those watching than any champion before or since. So powerful was the effect that it made the three all-too-short years he was alone at the top of the game, 1960 to 1962, the seminal period on which modern golf is built..."

Here are a couple of the millions of fans that Arnie reached out to.

Dear Editor, Jaime Diaz's article hopefully brought back fond memories for many who have cherished Arnie's contributions to the game as a player and spokesperson for our beloved sport. For me, a first encounter of the golf icon kind came at Rancho Park in the 1967 LA open where Arnie performed magic at a muni as his ardent army saw a man who relished the challenge that an errant shot might present. We all hit it sideways on occasion, but Arnie's swashbuckling bravado, although it may not have always presented instant reward, was entertainment well worth the price of admission. As Jaime points out, his charisma goes well beyond his skill on the course. He has always been a man of the people, by the people and for the people of golf, no matter what your handicap might be! He is a king who needs no crown or title for that matter!

Thanks, Jaime and Golf World for covering his 80th so well.

Andy Thuney, PGA
Dana Point, CA

We also got a copy of a letter to Arnie from Illinois fan Herb Gregory.

Dear Arnold Palmer,
Happy 80th, Arnie!

Over 48 years ago--in the summer of 1961--you played in a special golf exhibition at Drumlin's Country Club in Syracuse, New York. Joining you were the late Mike Souchak, Big George Bayer and the wiry Paul Harney in what was a most enjoyable, memorable day for everyone. You had started building your reputation as "The King" following your Masters championships in 1958 and 1960, and the U.S. Open title in 1960.

Syracuse is not known as a golfing mecca. Your coming to that area after those recent successes just forever endeared you to me, as well as to countless followers in "Arnie's Army." Having lived in Syracuse at that time, I was very fortunate to have been part of an appreciative crowd [that followed you]. All of us were grateful for your taking tim then to share your golfing passion with us.

Arnie, you've been the real face of golf for decades. You've been the leading force in building what the tour and all other golf is today. We're thankful and grateful.

Adding to this, you've created greater awareness for prostate cancer. Like you, I'm a survivor. You've helped others become aware of this dreaded disease and to act sooner, not later. Your early treatment no doubt has enabled you to reach 80. There must be many men owing their life extensions to the awareness you've helped to create.

Thanks for everything, Arnie. You will always be No. 1.

Herb Gregory
Palatine, IL

Amen.

--Bob Carney

A couple of recent letters suggest that there is still a great deal of confusion out there on the FedEx Cup, how it works and who deserves it.

Dear Editor, I follow golf ten times more than NASCAR on TV and the internet, but understand the Run for the Chase point format ten times better than I do the FedEx Cup point system. Paul Probst Canton, GA

Dear Editor,
Seeing as how it is unlikely that anyone will beat Tiger in the FedEx Cup let me be the first to nominate Steve Stricker for Sportsman of the Year.

Bill McInturf
Greenville, PA

To reader Probst and others who don't understand the system, let me suggest that part of the problem lies in referring to these as playoffs. In playoffs, someone wins and someone loses. As a team advances to the next round, no matter how dominating that team has been to that point, it's now on a level playing field with next team that it plays, no matter how narrowly that team squeaked by. Hence, a "wild card" can win the World Series. There has been a great deal of talk about the LPGA's ADT Championship format, which leaves eight finalists, from a field of 32, playing for all the money on the last day, number 8 having the same chance to win as number one. Would the Tour risk advancing 8 or 16 players to Sunday at East Lake and letting them have at it for most of that $10 million? I'm not hearing that.

For some lively debate on the FedEx Cup, check out geoffshackelford.com today.

--Bob Carney