Ranking No. 5 in the Lettermakers of the Year Awards, based very roughly on Golf World's Newsmakers of the Year issue--terrific this year and very much worth your while--is Readers Editing Editors. If I really wanted to embarrass us, I'd publish here all corrections and errors you've caught us in--in which you've caught us?--but that would be boring and not in keeping with magazine tradition. However, here are three of the latest letters that remind us that you're reading every darn word and thinking about most of them.

Dear Editor,
Tim Rosaforte and I don't always agree, and neither do subject and verb in Rosaforte's sentences. In the Oct. 19 issue, Rosaforte writes that Greg Norman's wines were enjoyed "until cases of Couples & Company was shipped in." Ouch. Surely Rosaforte and I can agree that better proofreading is needed.
 
Scott Hume
River Forest, IL

Is the answer "were shipped in" I got it right.

Dear Editor, Have only read through page 15 of the latest issue. On page 15, in the first column, "its" is used instead of "it's". Now you have two extra weeks this time to prepare the next issue, have someone who knows English usage proof it.

Yours,

Ruth Wasserman
Carlsbad, CA

Ruth always was a tough grader. Just remember, it's not so easy when it's you who's having to decide whether it's his, hers or its modifier. Thanks, Ruth. Please proceed to page 16.

Dear Editor,
I find it curious that Golf World (and at least one other weekly golf rag) includes a column which analyzes and often critiques T.V. coverage of golf tournaments. Writers have a heck of a lot more reaction time than television announcers and commentators who must, literally, run across a golf course because the tournament's outcome was just altered by something like a an eagle from a non- front runner. Additionally, they have to entertain an audience during the interminable pre-shot routines of today's pros. How would GW like it if the Golf Channel devoted half an hour every week to the screw-ups of golf writers and editors?

Coleman Morgan

Dear sir. Rag? Surely you don't mean our magazines. At any rate, if Golf Channel devoted half an hour every week to our screw-ups, it would mean only one thing: Our readers would have nothing to do. What's more, we'd say to our Golf Channel critics what they probably say to us and what Kenneth Tynan said about criticism long ago: "A critic is someone who knows the way but can't drive the car."

BTW, for an example of someone who really knows how to drive, check out Jaime Diaz's review of 2009 in the Newsmakers issue.

--Bob Carney

Michelle Wie, from tragic to triumphant, has to be one of our Lettermakers of the Year. We'll make her No. 4. Gene Martineau, a frequent correspondent, may have said it most aptly in his latest (very succinct) email:

Dear Editor, Finally, victory at long last.

Gene Martineau
Roseville, CA

You've got a way with words, Gene. Your letter perfectly embodies the relief (Wielief?) we all felt when we were finally able to write, "Wie Wins!" It was a like one our teenage kids graduating high school after four suspensions, sixteen parent/teacher conferences and ten senior-year assignments turned in late--for half credit (whew!). The hell with the cap and gown deal, let's just go out for pizza.

--Bob Carney

Golf Digest's environmental stories in December, which included a story on water conservation by David Owen and an interview with Pulitzer Prize winner Tom Friedman,
did not impress reader Ross Hatcher.

Dear Editor,
Enough with the global warming articles already! When I pick up a copy of Golf Digest, I look forward to being informed and entertained about issues that are actually relevant to the game. However, I recently often seem to find myself being preached to about the threat of nonexistent environmental disasters. I've had enough of it now and have officially switched to Golf Magazine for my tips, stories, and equipment reviews. If you would focus more on the game instead of trying to push absurd liberal agendas, you would have retained a customer.

Ross Hatcher

We'll miss you, Ross. And I mean that. But I think you'll miss us, as well. Even if you think there is no merit in stories on the environment--in the face of not only considerable evidence and the buy-in of the Golf Course Superintendents Association, among most organizations and companies in the industry--you'll miss 11 other issues with David Leadbetter, Butch Harmon, Jim McLean, Jim Flick, the Hot List and the best writers on the sport in the business, not mention interviews like this month's with Lee Trevino, or the fact that sooner or later our competitors at Golf will discover environmental issues and you'll have to switch back to us. Seriously, we think the environment is every golfer's business--regardless of your positions on things like water conservation and pesticide use. Stay around for the debate.

--Bob Carney

Illustration by Dan Winters

Golf Digest reader Mike Powers from Georgia is the first one to take exception to Dan Jenkins' account of this year's major winners. I expect he won't be the last, because Jenkins suggests that the "wrong" guys won....

Dear Editor,

While Dan Jenkin's article about a bad roster of major winners might have been tongue in cheek, it is still insulting to pros at any level who take up the challenge week to week. Readers already know there are a variety of talent levels; dominant, cruising, coasting, improving, struggling or just barely hanging on, but no matter what, all +125 earned the chance to step up to the tee any tournament and on Thursday morning everyone is tied for first and tied for last. Just because a high profile player didn't run away with the coveted major trophy doesn't make it any less of an accomplishment. If anything, maybe more so. The less known or admired player overcame challenges and obstacles the world's greatest and best coached ball strikers couldn't overcome. Why diminish their success or accomplishment ? They deserved to win, to imply anything less is in poor taste. Better topics would have been; getting up for majors, following up a major victory, seeking consistency week to week or year to year, believing in winning, what motivates the bottom 50 to compete (besides the money) or just about anything that recognizes and celebrates the competitive spirit in the lessor known players. Said another way, how did that article improve my play of the game, my enjoyment of the game, or my appreciation for the skills required to compete at any level ?

Mike Power

That last question is a great one. How does Dan Jenkins' jaundiced eye improve your view of the sport? I remember when Davis Love's father, the late Davis Love Jr., wrote for Golf Digest and we were doing a story together when Davis read Jenkins' account of Scott Simpson's 1987 U.S. Open victory. I think Jenkins said that it was about as exciting as watching hair grow or paint dry, something like that. It angered Davis, who understood from his own experience and his son's just what an accomplishment Simpson's was, and he let me know. How could Golf Digest demean such a victory?

But was he demeaning it, or just telling a different truth?

I tended to sympathize with Davis back then, but I'm not there now. Why? Because--not telling you anything you don't know here--the heart of any professional sport--golf, baseball, football--is not only the reality, the event, but the story we tell about it--and the story we want to hear. Our dreams, as well as the players' are part of it, a big part. It's wanting C.C. Sabathia to pitch a no-hitter, not a one-hitter, and why you might resent the guy that gets that one hit. It's rooting for your favorite NFL team to break the Miami Dolphins perfect record--or not--but demanding it be dramatic either way. Some stories are...I hesitate to say better, but certainly more lasting...than others. This year we had four such stories and none of them came to be. Kenny Perry, the good-guy, journeyman Southerner trying in vain to overcome age and pressure to win his first major, the one that meant more to him than any of the others; Phil Mickelson, returning to the city--and the galleries--that watched him blow the National Championship (and forgave him), grinding away to give himself and them another chance, only to let it slip away again; David Duval crawling from oblivion to get within two holes of the National Open, then to come up a putt short; Tom Watson, almost 60 but playing half that, leading the Open Championship with a hole to play, only to succumb to an old man's nerves; and finally Tiger, the year he comes back from knee surgery, about to take what's rightfully his, the year's final major, when it's snatched from him.

Forget that we had one of the greatest Latin American players ever winning the first major, a rising PGA Tour star we'll hear from again winning the second, the best player never to win a major finally getting his, and finally the first Asian player in history to win a major--pretty great story that--it just wasn't the same. We knew these players less well. It's not that we didn't like them; they simply weren't our heroes, at least not yet. Our heroes had fallen, the truth be told.

Dan has said that his goal as a sportswriter has always been to "get down to what's true." And with humor and an incredible ear for history (read his Sports Illustrated account of Crenshaw's first Masters victory, not funny, just perfect) he has done it. The great stories, not necessarily the great people, unraveled this year and that unraveling became a story in itself.

When the ballot came by this week to choose player of the year, I chose Yang, so great was his accomplishment for Asia, not to ainst the world's greatest player. But Dan's writing for us, not Asian Times.

I remember Stewart Cink at Turnberry graciously saying he knew we were rooting for Watson, that, heck, even he was to a point, and that he knew it wasn't personal.

It wasn't.

--Bob Carney

Money is the root of all golf tours and money lists, the ultimate measure of a player's season, other points calculations notwithstanding. Here's an interesting idea from a Golf World reader on a revision of the present money list calculation.

Dear Editor,

It's too bad the PGA Tour doesn't combine the final money totals for players on multiple tours. For example: If you add the money Tom Watson won on the PGA and Champions tours in 2009 his grand total of $1,531,275 would have placed him in 54th place on the PGA Tour and in 6th place (in final money) on the Champions Tour! I am sure you could also make a case for justifying (the final money) for pros like Ernie Els, Padraig Harrington, Retief Goosen, Paul Casey, Sergio Garcia, Angel Cabrera, Ian Poulter, Camillo Villegas, Anthony Kim, Robert Allenby (and others) playing on both the PGA and European Tours as well!

Dan Lynch
Centerville, OH

Dear Dan,

I'm not sure you'll ever convince the tours, no matter how global their thinking, that it's in their interest to count other-tour earnings (even if the player in question first fulfills the requirement of its tour for active status). That said, the list you're talking about would be an interesting one and one a magazine might create. Total competitive earnings. The problem is, such a list has no impact on a player's eligibility for events around the world. Those are determined by the individual tour lists. Ron Sirak does an earnings list for Golf Digest that includes all tour earnings, but it also includes endorsements. I like your idea. As the men's and women's tours go more global the list will become more relevant. Let us think about this....

--Bob Carney

Dear Editor, I had to laugh about you thinking NASCAR didn’t want to go up against Masters Sunday (Golf World, Bunker News). NASCAR never races on Easter Sunday, which is why there was no NASCAR race on Masters Sunday in 2009. The week after Easter Sunday, NASCAR usually races on Saturday night in Phoenix. In 2010, Easter Sunday is the week before the Masters which means NASCAR will be racing on Saturday night in Phoenix on Masters weekend. Jim Fuchs Costa Mesa, CA

Golf World is about to publish it's http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2009/11/golf_newsmakers_title issue. Look for it this week, it's terrific. To honor that important issue, I offer the first annual Lettermakers of the Year series of posts, beginning with our Top 3 letter-making subjects of the year:

1. Stevie's Bib
2. Golf Etiquette
3. Tiger's Golf Etiquette

We will handle other Lettermakers in subsequent blogs, but by way of the Top Three, here are the latest letters to both Golf World and Golf Digest on these subjects and they are fine ones:

Dear Editor,
With the anticipated upcoming rule change in 2010 regarding golf club grooves, perhaps the PGA Tour can consider amending its rule regarding a caddy removing his bib prior to the player leaving the green area of last hole played.  It's been rumored that the PGA Tour does not want to cross the games' biggest player.  But by a caddie removing his bib prior to leaving the green, he comes across like he/she is above the game and its followers.  And that's not right.
 
Jim Long,
Golf World Subscriber
Dover, NJ 

Dear Editor,
Why is Golf Digest advocating rules that encourage boorish behavior? Your November 2009 issue does this with Jerry Tarde's "Golf's 5 Sacred Rules" and Michael Jordan's "10 Rules for Maximum Competitiveness." According to Tarde, the "no-swearing rule" is not included because it is less important than "do not change your shoes in the parking lot" and "do not wear blue jeans." Personally, I could care less where someone changes their shoes. And blue jeans--especially the expensive kind--certainly are more attractive than some of the attire I've seen on the course. Tarde says, "One high-ranking golf official tells me that profanity is the genius of English elocution, so multifarious is a certain word that it brings unrestrained joy to the act of playing golf." Unrestrained joy? I suppose your enjoyment can't be tied to the experience of being outside, the game's challenge and the company of friends. Maybe that official should be fired. Do you really enjoy listening to some guy spewing f-bombs every time he hits a bad shot? Among other things, swearing indicates that you: 1. Have unrealistic expectations. 2. Cannot control your anger. 3. Have such a limited vocabulary that you cannot express disgust in any other way. Like, try humor. 4. Do not have respect for your fellow golfers, the game - or yourself.

Jerry, how can you call your rules "sacred"? Top this off with Michael Jordan's rule No. 8, where he says "I love trash-talking, and there's an art to turning it into a competitive edge." A friendly needle is one thing, but he uses it to gain an advantage. Michael, can't you get by on your ability? Maybe you're just a jerk. I suppose all the pros will start trash-talking during tournaments. As Tiger gets ready to tee off, I can hear Phil say, "Now don't push it to the right." Golf is professed to be different from other games. Why should the decorum in an informal match be any different than in a professional one, particularly if the one on the receiving end doesn't like it?

Theodore Tramp
North St. Paul, MN

Dear Editor,
As a wife of a PGA member and more importantly a mother of a 16 year old son who is an avid junior golfer, I am absolutely disgusted and appalled with Tiger's recent temper tantrum in the JBWere Australian Masters in Melbourne. How do you expect us to teach our young players that it is unacceptable to behave like he did pounding and throwing a club because of a poor shot. If my son were to do this in his junior tour events or high school matches he would be disqualified and all Tiger may receive is a fine (which is meaningless) and a "slap on the hand". He knows that he is a mentor to many young golfers and should have better control of his temper. He should have been immediately disqualified and not receive his appearance fee. At least there would be consequences for his actions.

Janet Soli
San Carlos,

Thanks for all of these letters, each summarizing one of the year's big letter-provoking issues. I especially like reader Trampe's letter, the first part of which should be must-reading for new golfers. I'm not sold on your trash-talking stance, however. I saw Michael and Anthony Kim go at it in the Golf Digest U.S. Open Challenge practice round at Bethpage this spring and Kim laid a choking suggestion on Jordan on the final hole, before the big money shot, and Michael immediately chunked a wedge approach. There was not a whimper on his part, though. Part of the game.

I view trash talking as training. If your close friends do it, they're trying to toughen you up the way Earl Woods did Tiger, for example, and when they've gotten to you and laugh when you react, you know, deep down, you've done it to yourself. I also offer a slight adjustment on the swearing issue. There are golfers, male and female, who, despite having robust vocabularies, rely on the George Carlin's list. And they do it hilariously. I think exception should be made for these Hall of Fame self-effacers, assuming they use their powers sparingly. Reader Soli, I'm with you on Tiger. And I wouldn't be surprised if he's with you, too. If they gave Mulligans on tour, I expect he'd take one at Melbourne.

Nevertheless, the moral to the first three Lettermakers of the Year is: We golfers are not created equal and neither are our caddies. The PGA Tour will not pick a fight with Stevie over the caddy bib. Tiger, despite the fines, won't get any lectures from Tim Finchem, much less a disqualification. And some guys can do almost anything and make it look classy while others will look sleazy reading the Bible. Many are called, but few are chosen, even in golf.

It would be a serious faux pas on my part, however, if I didn't wish you all a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

--Bob Carney

Around Labor Day we talked here about Maj. Dan Rooney's Patriot Golf Day, supported by the PGA of America, which seems to be doing a lot of good things these days. Makes sense around Veteran's Day to report the results of the third annual day, just in. It was all good news.

Forty-four hundred facilities raised more than $1.9 million for Folds of Honor Foundation. Those dollars are earmarked for scholarships to the children of fallen and disabled vets. About 570 scholarships have been awarded over the past two years.

Golf Digest Managing Editor Roger Schiffman, who sits on the Patriot Day scholarship board, says the average scholarship is about $2500, but is often worth much more because the money is invested long before the kids enter college.

Not to get on the soapbox, but it's one more reason why golf should take no shots in these tough economic times. Among all the recreation and pleasure it produces, it also raises on average about $3.5 billion a year for charity. (The PGA Tour accounts for about $125 million of that). Those are astounding (and outstanding) numbers and golfers should wear them proudly. By the way, if you haven't contributed to Patriot's Day, click here.

--Bob Carney

This question of whether Tiger Woods "showboats" more than Jack Nicklaus--the subject of letters here and in the Mail column of Golf World--caused two more readers to weigh in, both in support of Tiger and in opposition to letter writer MacKimmie in the November 9 edition of Golf World.

Dear Editor,
I am surprised Golf World would print a letter in its Mail section that is written as if fact when in reality it is not.

Mr. MacKimmie of Canada states "showboating was not part of Jack's act" as a reference to Tiger Woods actions after his shot at 18 at the Presidents Cup.
Have you forgotten Jack throwing his putter up in the air at The Open on No. 18, or raising his putter and tracking the putt at No. 17 at The Masters in 1986 or his exuberance at No. 16 at Augusta when he sank that long putt? Was Jack showboating? Probably not, but he was excited. Was Tiger showboating? Not anymore than than Jack.

P.S. In full disclosure I am a Jack and Tiger fan.

Ed Pearson
Brunswick, GA

Dear Editor,
W. MacKimmie claims that the cover photo of Tiger's reaction at the President's Cup represents showboating, "not part of Jack's act". The most iconic photograph of Nicklaus is of him raising the putter over his head after sinking a putt at the 1986 Masters. I fail to see the difference in the two reactions.

Bill White
Watch Hill, RI

A third reader pointed to Tiger as a model of style in another sense.

Dear Editor,
When is somebody going to take Phil Mickelson and Ryan Moore to the Tiger Woods School of How to Dress on the Golf Course?

Joe Pratt

On course decorum, both on Tour and at our local clubs and courses, is a subject you never tire of discussing. It's a big deal, a fact that the tour players (and your weekend partners) ought to be aware of. You care.

--Bob Carney

Alas, another letter reminding us aging editors, that we're dinosaurs, believing, as the old coach said, that athletes ought to act "as if they've been there before." How about you? In reader Wickersham's list below, do you prefer column A or column B?

Dear Editor,
In answer to W. MacKimmie's letter "Missing the Boat" in the November 9 edition, which bemoaned his impression that Tiger Woods lacked the style and professionalism of Jack Nicklaus, consider the following comparisons: Chad Ochocinco and Raymond Berry,
Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens, Serena Williams and Althea Gibson, Manny Ramirez and Ted Musial, Kobe Bryant and Oscar Robertson, even Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer. The newcomer always has to overcome the aura of those who came before him. With press coverage and unforgiving fans dogging them 24-7, living up to the reputations of
those of a different era becomes impossible. For all we know, those stars from the past may not have been so revered had all their personal habits been made public.

B. Wickersham
Richmond, KY

--Bob Carney